YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

Ube "GlniversttB of Gbtcago

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE
EPISTLES AND THEIR TRANSLATION
IN THE REVISED VERSION

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF NEW TESTAMENT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

BY
ARTHUR WAKEFIELD SLATEN

Historical and Linguistic Studies, Second Series, Vol. IV, Part I
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
1018

FN20

Copyright 1918 By
The University or Chicago

All Rights Reserved

Published July 1918

The Bible Text in this volume is taken from the American
Standard Edition of the Revised Bible (copyright 1901 by
Thomas Nelson & Sons), and is used by permission.

The Greek quotations in this volume are taken from The
New Testament in the Original Greek, edited by Brooke Foss
Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, published by The
Macmillan Company, and are used by permission of the pub
lishers.

Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

PREFACE
The qualitative' use of nouns is a subject not generally familiar,
but one which, in the interests of accurate exegesis, students of the Greek
New Testament cannot rightly ignore. Investigation indicates that it
has been largely overlooked by both grammarians and commentators.
It is hoped that the present treatment, confined necessarily to a limited
field, may both serve to call attention to an important and neglected
topic and lead to the application of the principles therein set forth by
workers not only in other parts of the New Testament but also in the
wider field of general Greek literature.
A list of the' nouns used qualitatively in the Pauline Epistles is pre
sented, showing about nine Hundred nouns to be so used. Of these, fifteen
have been selected for detailed study, the findings in each case being
shown in the form of a statistical and comparative statement of usage,
an exhibit of the usage in prepositional phrases, a discussion of the quali
tative usage other than in prepositional phrases, and a consideration of
the renderings of the Revised Version. The nouns thus studied are
vopos, afnapria, irians, Sucaioavvy, iXiris, evayyeXiov, OtXypa, ayios, aSeXcpos,
KXyros, AiToaroXos, ciriaKOiros, aiaryp, Kvpios, and Oeos.
To Professor Ernest DeWitt Burton, Head of the Department of
New Testament and Early Christian Literature in the University of
Chicago, grateful acknowledgment is made both for the original impetus
toward the investigation and for continued encouragement and helpful
suggestion and criticism. Arthur Wakefield Slaten

CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Prolegomena  i
i. Justification of the Present Study  i
2. Translational Possibilities  4
A. Variety of Possible Readings  4
B. Comparison of Greek and English Usage  4
C. Varieties of Error in Translation  5
3. Scope of the Present Investigation  6
4. The Determinative Principle in the Identification of Qualitative
Nouns  6
5. Translational Statistics  10
II. List of the Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles . . 12
III. Detailed Study of Selected Qualitative Nouns .... 35
NojU,os, 35; 'Apapria, 40; litems 44; BiKaioavvrj, 47; 'EA7rt's, 49;
EvayyeXiov, 51; ®eXvim, 52; "Aytos, 545 ?A8eXqj>ds, 55; KAtttos, 57;
'AiroaroXos, 58; 'Eirto-K07ros, 59; %wryp 60; Kyotos, 62; ®eds, 64
IV. Summary of the Results of the Study  69

I. PROLEGOMENA
i. JUSTIFICATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY
On page 23 of his Notes on New Testament Grammar (Chicago, 1904),
under the heading "Syntax of the Article," Professor Ernest D. Burton
says: "a) The article is in general either (1) Restrictive (demonstrative)
or (2) Generic.
"b) Nouns without the article are either (1) Indefinite or (2) Quali
tative (adjectival)."
Inasmuch as the foregoing classification of anarthrous nouns intro
duces a distinction recognized, so far as known, by no previous writer
upon the subject, it is interesting to find Professor James Hope Moulton
saying on page 83 of the Prolegomena,1 "For exegesis there are few of
the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than
this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the
quality or character of the object. Even the Revised Version misses
this badly sometimes, as in John 6:68."
These two remarks furnish the suggestion for such an investigation as
the one here attempted, the first outlining the principles upon which it
should proceed, the second providing it with an adequate practical
object. In the course of the investigation, however, attention has
necessarily been given to the classification of all nouns in the Pauline
Epistles as a prerequisite to the closer study of the special selected group
of nouns used qualitatively. In each case the rendering of the Revised
Version has been observed and recorded. That such an intensive study
of the usage of qualitative nouns is not a work of supererogation is wit
nessed by the fact that none of the New Testament grammars treats it
in any detail.
James Hope Moulton, in the work above referred to, page 82,
has a few lines on the topic " Qualitative Force in Anarthrous Nouns,"
merely remarking that "the lists of words which specially affect the
dropped article will, of course, need careful examination for the indi
vidual cases. Thus, when Winer includes iraryp in his hst, and quotes
John 1:14 and Heb. 12:7, we must feel that in both passages the
1 A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope Moulton (3d ed.; Edin
burgh, 1908), Vol. I, Prolegomena.
1] 1

6 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
qualitative force is very apparent — 'what son is there whom his father,
us a father, does not chasten ? ' (On the former passage see R.V. margin,
and the note in Winer-Moulton, p. 151)." He then adds the remark
quoted at the beginning of this thesis.
A. T. Robertson in his Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament
([New York, 1909], p. 72) has a paragraph entitled "When the Article Is
Not Used." He makes no mention of a qualitative use of nouns of
which the absence of the article is an indication. In his larger work, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
([New York, 1914], pp. 790-96), Professor Robertson discusses "The
Absence of the Article." He refers to Moulton's remark above alluded
to and quotes as follows: '"Few of the finer points of Greek which
need more constant attention' than the absence of the article," omitting
Moulton's words about the qualitative force of such cases. On page 794
Professor Robertson, discussing the absence of the article with abstract
nouns, says, "No vital difference was felt between articular and anar
throus abstract nouns," citing Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 259). In treating
briefly of the qualitative force of nouns Professor Robertson says on
the same page, "This is best brought out in anarthrous nouns," and
cites a few instances.
Friedrich Blass's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch
(vierte, neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner [Got-
tingen, 1913], pp. 145762), in the discussion of the article, does not
mention the qualitative usage.
Gildersleeve-Miller (Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demos
thenes, Part II [New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, 191 1], p. 259) says
that no vital difference was felt between articular and anarthrous
abstract nouns; that prepositional phrases and other formulas may
dispense with the article, so also proverbs, the ordinals in expressions
of time, enumerations, and fSao-iXem, of the Persian king.
Raphael Kuhner (Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache
[Hannover und Leipzig, 1898], I, 598-610) discusses the omission of the
article, listing thirteen cases, e.g., before proper names, in prepositional
phrases, before abstract nouns, etc. He makes no mention of the
qualitative usage, nor does he discover any principle governing the
omission of the article, but merely lists various cases in which the article
is omitted. Alexander Buttmann (A Grammar of the New Testament Greek
English translation by J. H. Thayer [Andover, 1891]) makes no mention
of the qualitative usage. 2

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 3
Winer-Thayer (A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament
[Andover, 1874]) makes no mention of the qualitative usage of nouns.1
Thomas Sheldon Green (.4 Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testa
ment [London, 1842], pp. 182-83), discussing the use of the article,
recognizes the qualitative turn given in certain cases by the omission of
the article. His words are as follows:
The above-mentioned omissions of the article before nouns where its
presence is legitimate are only permissive; it remains to notice one that is
designed. It has already been remarked in the last section that the presence of the
article is an impediment to the inherent significance of the word to which it is
prefixed having a prominence or point in the sentence. Accordingly the
instances which will now be brought forward are those of words to which
the article might rightly be prefixed, but where it is withheld for this particular
reason. Heb. 1:1: iXaXr/acv ypiv iv uttu.
The absence of the article may be referred to a cause just mentioned,
namely, the preposition, but it is more probably intentional. Had the writer
said iv t<3 vl<S the words would merely have called to mind the person already
familiarly known under the title of the Son of God, without calling attention
to the inherent meaning of the title; but his special concern is with his nature
and attributes, namely, a design of impressing upon his readers his divine
sonship, and, which is the leading idea of the epistle, his immeasurable supe
riority in virtue of it to all preceding persons having a divine commission. It
may sound strange, but the rendering should probably be "by a Son" or
"by one who is his Son," implying that God no longer addressed them by a
prophet, a mere oikctijs, but by one who had the nature and dignity of a son.
There is the same contrast in 7: 28.
Summary. — In their treatment of the article grammarians have
been forced to consider its frequent omission or, as Professor Robertson
prefers to say, "absence." They have noted its non-appearance in
various instances and have listed these. Among the cases in which the
article may be omitted Green, in 1842, mentions the intentional omission
of the article in order that the inherent signification of the noun may
without impediment emerge. This view, which is another name for the
qualitative usage, he puts forward with diffidence and caution. The
1 Note Winer's claim in Stuart and Robinson's translation of his work entitled
A Greek Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Andover, 1825), p. 55, that the insertion
or omission of the article is a mark of individual style, and his agreement with
Gersdorf (1816) that the four evangelists always write 6 xpivrSs, but Paul and
Peter usually xpurris, "as this appellation had in their time become a proper name."
3

4 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
German grammars do not recognize the qualitative usage. The English
and American works of Moulton and Robertson recognize that anar
throus nouns may express a quahtative idea, but offer no thoroughgoing
doctrine of the article which sets forth a definite principle governing its
presence or absence. This is apparently for the first time attempted in
Professor Burton's Notes on New Testament Grammar, referred to on
page i of this thesis.1 2. TRANSLATIONAL POSSIBILITIES
A. VARIETY OF POSSIBLE READINGS
Considered purely as a matter of linguistic possibility and without
regard to the correctness or incorrectness of the translation, it is obvious
that in the translation of the New Testament, as of any other Greek
document, into English there are the following six possibilities of render
ing, viz., a Greek noun with the definite article may be rendered by:
(i) an English noun with the definite article, (2) an English noun with the
indefinite article, (3) an anarthrous English noun. An anarthrous
Greek noun may be rendered by: (1) an anarthrous English noun,
(2) an English noun with the indefinite article, (3) an English noun
with the definite article. Examination shows that each of these render
ings does actually occur, though naturally with varying frequency. For
example, the rendering of a Greek noun with the definite article by an
English noun with the indefinite article is very rare, while the rendering
of an anarthrous Greek noun by an English noun with the definite
article is also relatively infrequent.
B. COMPARISON OF GREEK AND ENGLISH USAGE
The observation of such phenomena is, however, but the necessary
preliminary to the real task of comparison and criticism. It would be
remarkable if the genius of two languages should so perfectly agree that
in every case the articular usage of the one could be represented by
an exactly identical idiom in the other. In the case of Greek and
English such a mechanical reproduction is manifestly impossible.
While in general the usage of the article in the two languages is similar
and the classification quoted in the beginning obtains in both, there
are certain constructions with the definite article in Greek which cannot
1 The school grammars of Goodwin and of Hadley and Allen make no mention of
the qualitative usage of nouns.

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 5
be rendered intelligibly in English by its employment.1 On the other
hand the indefiniteness of anarthrous Greek nouns in the singular can be
expressed in English only by the prefixing of a or an.
It should be observed, however, that' the prefixing of the indefinite
article in English does not always result in making the noun indefinite.
That quahtative character which is in Greek denoted by the absence of
the article is in English frequently expressed by the employment of the
indefinite article. In many instances Enghsh requires its presence, an
anarthrous rendering being inadequate or awkward. Thus in the
sentence "A man's a man for a' that," though the form of the nouns is
identical the first is indefinite, the second qualitative. On the other
hand the prefixing of a or an is not always necessary. For example,
in the sentence "This can never happen while God is God and man is
man," the second "God" and "man" are each qualitative, although both
are anarthrous. There appears to be no rule by which one can decide
in advance when the qualitative force will properly be expressed by a
noun with a or an and when anarthrously. It is wholly a matter of
English Sprachgefilhl, and while to a foreigner the two forms might on
occasion appear of equal desirability the trained Enghsh ear chooses
infallibly between them. It is evident from these considerations that
in the translation of the Greek New Testament into English a consider
able divergence from Greek usage is to be expected, and the limits
of such divergence will be the necessities of the case.

C. VARIETIES OF ERROR IN TRANSLATION
Translation being itself obviously a task of interpretation, the trans
lator faces the double duty of discovering his author's meaning in
Greek and of expressing that meaning adequately in English. This
twofold task naturally involves a corresponding twofold habihty to error.
The possibihties of error in respect to the article, when carried out to
their fullest form, may be enumerated as follows:
i. A translator may fail to grasp the significance of the presence or
absence of the Greek article, but express that significance properly in
Enghsh. In such a case error2 could not be detected.
1 Instance the infinitive with the article, nouns with the article and a following
pronominal genitive, etc.
"The term "error" is used throughout to denote any inadequacy in translation,
any failure fully to express the thought conveyed by the presence or absence of the
Greek article.

6 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
2. He may fail to grasp the significance of the presence or absence
of the Greek article and may fail to express that significance properly
in his English translation. In this case the error is detectable.
3. He may grasp the significance of the presence or absence of the
Greek article but fail to express that significance appropriately in English.
In this case the error is detectable.
4. He may grasp the significance of the presence or absence of the
Greek article and may properly express that significance in English.
In this case there is no error.
3. SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION
It is the second and the third of these possibilities that justify such an
investigation as the one here attempted. In practice the two merge into
one, viz., the possibihty of a translator's faihng adequately to express
in Enghsh the significance of the presence or absence of the article in
Greek. In the present study this field of possibility is still further
limited to the consideration of anarthrous nouns alone, and of these to
the qualitative division only, and of these again especially to those the
adequacy of whose translation in the Revised Version may justly be
challenged. Having classified all Greek nouns occurring in the Pauline
Epistles, and having appraised their English renderings in the Revised
Version, we have limited the field first by the selection of a single type,
secondly by selecting from that type a special variety, and thirdly by
selecting from that variety a specific class.
4. THE DETERMINATIVE PRINCIPLE IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF
QUALITATIVE NOUNS
Before entering upon a discussion of such a selection of the more
outstanding and characteristic Pauline terms as falls within the scope of
this thesis to examine, or before enumerating the statistics pertaining
to the various classes and usages of nouns which the study has discovered,
it is proper at this point to insert a statement of the principle which has
been determinative in the identification of quahtative nouns in this
investigation and which may guide one in ascertaining whether any given
anarthrous Greek noun in any Greek document is or is not quahtative.
This principle may best be precisely summarized in the form of a defini
tion. A quahtative noun is a noun (in Greek always anarthrous) whose
function in the sentence is not primarily or solely to designate by assign
ment to a class but to describe by the attribution of quality, i.e., of the
quality or qualities that are the marks of the class designated by the
6

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 7
noun. The effect is to ascribe to that which is modified the characteris
tics or qualities of a class and not merely to ascribe to it membership in
that class. It is the connotive rather than the denotive sense that
emerges. In the sentence "Frederick is a prince" the word "prince" is
either designative, marking Frederick as a member of a class, a son of a
monarch, or qualitative, describing Frederick as the possessor of the
superior character presumed to distinguish the son of a king. At the
same time it is to be noted that the literal sense may obtain alongside
the qualitative. Frederick may, for example, in fact be a prince and to
him may be attributed the virtues that are regarded as proper to his
station. In most instances this is precisely the design of the qualitative
usage, viz., to direct the attention of the hearer or reader to the qualities
or characteristics that properly belong to that which the noun designates.
Each common noun designates any or all members of a class, the class
being defined by the possession of certain attributes; therefore to predi
cate the noun of an individual, strictly speaking, both assigns it to the
class and ascribes to it the attributes which distinguish the class. But
in actual usage this strictness is not always maintained. Four cases
may arise, viz. :
a) The individual may be assigned to the class without stress being
laid upon the qualities of the class, though in fact the individual may
possess them all. The noun is indefinite, e.g., Henry is a soldier.
b) Because in this case there is not much stress laid upon the quahties,
the individual may be assigned to the class, though he may not possess
all the qualities: Henry is a soldier (that is, a member of a military
organization, though he lacks some of the soldierly qualities).
c) The qualities may be assigned to a member of the class without
particular thought of the class, e.g., Henry is a soldier (i.e., has all the
quahties of a soldier).
d) Because membership in the class may be little thought of, the
quahties, or rather a part of them, may be ascribed to one who is not
strictly a member of the class, e.g., Henry is a soldier (i.e., has soldierly
quahties, though not a member of any military organization).
If one distinguish between external, formal qualities and internal
quahties, in most of the cases faihng under b) it would be the internal
qualities that would be neglected, while in d) it is the external qualities
that are forgotten. The term "soldier" denotes strictly a man who
belongs to a military organization and has soldierly qualities, such as
courage, etc. But we may assign him to the class, though he possess only
the external qualities, or we may describe him as qualitatively a soldier,
7

8 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
though he has only the internal quahties. In other cases the distinction
is perhaps between the proper (i.e., strict) sense of the term and its
tropical sense. In these cases the indefinite use arises when the indi
vidual possesses the quahties expressed by the term in its proper sense
but is in thought assigned to the class without thought of the quahties;
the quahtative use arises when emphasis is placed either upon the proper
or the tropical quahties. The great majority of the indefinite cases
fall under a); the great majority of the quahtative cases fall under c).
This nuance of characteristic is usually accompanied in Enghsh by
the prefixing of the indefinite article and is accomplished by an inflection
of the voice. In Greek the same effect is produced by the omission of
the article and doubtless as in English (the context making clear to the
reader or hearer which of the two meanings was intended) was accom
panied by an appropriate vocal emphasis. Naturally not all instances
are as easily recognized as that in the illustration cited, though some are
perfectly obvious, but a careful scrutiny reveals even to an Enghsh eye
or ear that qualitative emphasis which the omission of the article pro
duced for the original writer and readers.
Strictly abstract nouns, being themselves the names of qualities,
are essentially quahtative, and the omission of the article serves merely
to strengthen this innate qualitative force.
Appellatives are probably in their inception essentially qualitative,
though they tend to become conventional titles, dropping their qualita
tive character. Master and Mr. in English and Herr in German exem
plify this fading of qualitative color. The same process is illustrated
in the word Kvpioi, which in modern Greek has become merely the pohte
Mr. or sir,1 while in the New Testament Kvpios and Oeos are among those
most frequently used in the qualitative sense, as a glance at the hst of
nouns used qualitatively will show. In English, appellatives, whether
anarthrous or preceded by the definite article, may be qualitatively used.
Instance "Charles the Hammer," "Old Hickory," "Stonewall Jackson."
Proper names may also be used qualitatively, and though few
instances occur in the New Testament they are not infrequently so used
both in Greek and English authors.
Gentilic nouns, which are related both to appellatives and proper
nouns, are occasionally used qualitatively. A convincing example is the
1 A similar usage of Kipios is apparent in the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 17:15-
18:21; 21:39; 27:63; Mark 7: 28), but a return to or an emphasis upon the essentia^
qualitative character of the appellative is possible, so that the affirmation "Jesus is
xipios" came to be, to Paul at least, the distinctively Christian confession.
8

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 9
use of 'IouStuos in Rom. 2:17, where to bring out the quahtative force
we might read and punctuate, "But if thou bearest the name 'Jew.' "
Common or concrete nouns both in English and Greek readily lend
themselves to quahtative emphasis. Such Enghsh common nouns as
"the pen," "the sword," "the scepter," "the crown," are illustrations
of common nouns used qualitatively. But as a rule the definite article
occurs with nouns used quahtatively only with concrete nouns used by
metonymy for abstract or actional nouns. Thus " The pen is mightier
than the sword" really means "Writing is more powerful than fighting."
It would perhaps be strictly correct to say that a concrete generic noun
is used by metonymy for a quahtative abstract or actional noun.
Though for the sake of brevity we may speak of nouns as quahtative,
it is to be kept in mind that the classification is not one of nature but of
usage. There is no class of quahtative nouns as such, as there is of
proper, concrete, etc. Nouns of any class may be used quahtatively
while retaining their natural classification. The pecuharity of quahta
tive usage is that the noun is so used as to lay emphasis upon the quahties
or characteristics which properly belong to that which the noun repre
sents. This quahtative emphasis does not, however, in all cases obliter
ate the definite reference of the noun. When the reference is commonly
limited to a single person or thing, for example, the definiteness of the
noun is not dissipated by the quahtative emphasis, though to express
this emphasis the noun is made anarthrous. In Rom. 1 : 1, for example,
evayyeXiov, though anarthrous and quahtative, is also definite, there
being but one "gospel" present to the author's mind, and the translation
as will be pointed out later should run "separated unto divine good
news," or "separated unto a gospel of God," the presence of the indefinite
article in Enghsh not making the noun itself indefinite but expressing its
qualitative character, ©eds also as commonly used in the New Testa
ment has a distinct and limited reference to the one God, and when it is
used quahtatively it does not thereby cease to be definite.
The recognition of the quahtative usage of nouns is of extreme
importance in the translation and interpretation of the New Testament.
That the significance of this usage is not generally recognized is apparent
not only in many of the renderings of the Revised Version but even in
critical commentaries upon the Greek text and in the standard grammars
of New Testament Greek. While the present study of the subject
maintains a constant critical surveillance of the renderings of the Revised
Version as a parallel investigation, the whole is based upon the examina
tion of New Testament Greek usage as such, and the purpose of the
9

10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
thesis is to aid in correct interpretation through the recognition on the
part of the interpreter of this factor hitherto too much neglected, and
not merely the negative task of pointing out imperfections in the current
Enghsh translation. Though the nature of the study brings into special
prominence the points at which the Revised Version's neglect of the
quahtative usage of nouns is most patent and its consequences most
disastrous, the general merit of the translation is fuhy conceded. See
page 69. 5. TRANSLATIONAL STATISTICS
Preceding the detailed study of such individual quahtative nouns
as it hes within the scope of the present thesis to exhibit, a statistical
statement of the data discovered is appropriate.
In the Pauhne Epistles (Pastorals included) there occur 8,841 nouns
and noun equivalents.1 Classified according to their use as restrictive,
generic, indefinite, and quahtative they yield the following figures:
restrictive, 3,743 cases;2 generic, 929; indefinite, 589; quahtative, 2,857.
The variety of possible translations in any given case has already
been adverted to. The findings of the present investigation are that
nouns preceded by the definite article were translated:
1. By an Enghsh noun preceded by the definite article in 1,702 cases.
2. By an English noun preceded by the indefinite article in 16 cases.
3. By an anarthrous Enghsh noun in 2,954 cases.
Anarthrous Greek nouns were translated:
1. By an anarthrous Enghsh noun in 2,404 cases.
2. By an Enghsh noun preceded by the indefinite article in 397 cases.
3. By an Enghsh noun preceded by the definite article in 645 cases.
These renderings were distributed as follows:
The 3,743 restrictive nouns were rendered by English nouns preceded
by the definite article in 1,480 cases; by Enghsh nouns preceded by the
indefinite article in 6 cases; by anarthrous Enghsh nouns in 2,257
cases. The 929 generic nouns were rendered by Enghsh nouns preceded
by the definite article in 222 cases; by Enghsh nouns preceded by
the indefinite article in 10 cases; by anarthrous Enghsh nouns in
697 cases.
1 The statement has no bearing on the extent of the Pauline vocabulary. Often
the same noun occurs many times.
3 Besides these there are 723 cases of proper names and appellatives which have
been classified as restrictive without the article. 10

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 11
The 589 indefinite nouns were rendered by anarthrous Enghsh
nouns in 405 cases; by Enghsh nouns preceded by the indefinite article
in 125 cases; by English nouns preceded by the definite article in
59 cases. The 2,857 quahtative nouns were rendered by anarthrous English
nouns in 1,999 cases; by Enghsh nouns preceded by the indefinite article
in 272 cases; by Enghsh nouns preceded by the definite article in
586 cases.

11

II. LIST OF THE QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE
PAULINE EPISTLES
'A#8o, Rom. 8:15; n: 1; Gal. 4:6
'Afipadp, Rom. 4:2, 16
dyatfds, Rom. 7:18, 19; 8:28; 10:15; Gal. 6:6
ayadwavvy, Rom. 15:14; Gal. 5:23; Eph. 5:9; II Thess. 1:11
ayavaKTyo-K, II Cor. 7:11
dydiry, Rom. 14:15; I Cor. 4:21; 13:1, 2, 3, 13; 16:14; H Cor. 2:8;
6:6; Gal. 5:6, 22; Eph. 1:4; 3:17; 4:2, 15, 16; 5:1; 6:23;
Phil. 1:16; 2:1; Col. 2:2; I Thess. 5:8, 13; I Tim. 1:5; 2:15;
4:12; 6:11; II Tim. 1 : 6, 13 ; 2:22
dyiwnjTds, Rom. 12:19; I Cor. 10:14; H Cor. 7:1; 12:19; Phil. 2:12;
4:1
ayy«Xos, Rom. 8:38; I Cor. 6:3; II Cor. 11:14; Gal. 1:8; 3:19; 4:14;
I Tim. 3:16
dyuurpos, Rom. 6:19, 22; I Cor. 1:30; I Thess. 4:4, 7; II Thess. 2:13;
I Tim. 2:15
ayios, I Cor. 1:2; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:12; I Tim. 5:10
dyMoo-wi;, Rom. 1:4; II Cor. 7:1; I Thess. 3:13
ayiorys, II Cor. 1:12
dyvta, I Tim. 4:12; 5:2
dyvoTiys, II Cor. 6:5
dyvuo-ta, I Cor. 15:34
dypteAaios, Rom. 11:17
dypwvta, II Cor. 6:5; 11:27
dy<iv, Col. 2 : 1 ; I Thess. 2 : 2
aSyXorys, I Tim. 6:17
dSeXcpy, I Cor. 9:551 Tim. 5 : 2
dSeX^ds, Rom. 1:13; 7:1,4; 8:12,29; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14,30;
16:17; ICor. 1:10, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 5:11; 6:8; 7:24,29; 10:1;
11:33; 14=5. 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 31, 50, 58; 16:15; II Cor. 1:6;
8:1; 13:11; Gal. 1:10; 3:15; 4:12, 28,31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18;
Phil.i:i2; 3:1,17; 4=1,8; I Thess. 2:1, 9, 14, 17; 3:7; 4:i,n,13;
5:1,4, 12, 14, 25; II Thess. 1:3; 2:1, 13; 3:1, 6, 13, 15; I Tim.
5:1; 6:2; Philem. 7, 16, 20
doWa, Rom. 1 : 18 (bis), 29; 6:13; 9:14; II Thess. 2:10; II Tim. 2:19
12 [12

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 13
d'&Kos, I Cor. 6:9
&£vpcK, I Cor. 5 : 8
ayp, I Cor. 9:26; 14:10; I Thess. 4:17
aOavacria, I Cor. 15:53; I Tim. 6:16 v
ai8<os, I Tim. 2 : 9
alpa, Rom. 3:15; I Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 6:12
alviypa, I Cor. 13:12
atpto-is, I Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20
aiaOycris, Phil. 1 : 9
tuo-xpoXoyta, Col. 3:8
oto-xpds, Eph. 5:12
alaxporys, Eph. 5:4
alxpaXvjcria., Eph. 4:8
aKa.Qa.paia, Rom. 1:24; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5; I Thess.
^ 2:3; 4:7
aKa.6a.pros, II Cor. 6:17
aKaraaracria, I Cor. 14:32; II Cor. 6:5; 12:20
a.Koy, Rom. 10:17; I Cor. 12:7; Gal. 3:2, 5; I Thess. 2:13
aKpoplvaTia, Rom. 2:25; 3:30; 4:10 (Ms), 11, 12; I Cor. 7:18; Gal.
5:6; 6:15; Eph. 2:11; Col. 3:10
aKpoywviaios, Eph. 2 : 20
aXa£<ov, Rom. 1:30; II Tim. 3:2
dAas, Col. 4:6
dXyOeia, Rom. 2:2; 9:1; 15:8; I Cor. 5:8; II Cor. 6:7; 7:14 (bis);
11:10; 12:6; Gal. 5:7; Eph. 4:20, 25; 5:9; 6:14; Phil. 1:18;
Col. 1:6; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 2:4, 7 (Ms); II Tim. 2:25; 3:7;
Titus 1 : 1
dXvais, Eph. 6:19
dpapria, Rom. 3:9, 20 ; 5:13 (Ms); 6:14, 16; 7:7, 8, 13, 25; 8:3 (Ms),
10; 14:23; II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 2:17; 3:22; I Tim. 5:22; II Tim.
3:7
dpaprrnXos, Rom. 3:7; 5:8; Gal. 2:15, 17; I Tim. 1:9, 15
dvayKatos, II Cor. 9 : 5
dvdyKy, Rom. 13:5; I Cor. 7:37; 9:16; II Cor. 6:4; 9:7; 12:10;
Philem. 14
dvdOepa, Rom. 9:3; I Cor. 12:3; 16:21; Gal. 1:8, 9
dvaKatvwais, Titus 3 : 5
dvdo-Tao-ts, Rom. 1:4; I Cor. 15:12, 13, 21; II Tim. 2:18
dvaarpocpy, I Tim. 4:12
dvSpajroSiOTi/s, I Tim. 1 : 10 13

14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
dvSpo<^dvos, I Tim. i : 9
avepos, Eph. 4:14
dWo-ts, II Cor. 2:13; 7:5; 8:13; II Thess. 1:7
dvijp, I Cor. 11:7, 8 (Ms), 9, 11 (Ms); 13:11; II Cor. 11:2; Eph. 4:13;
I Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6
dvOpa£, Rom. 12:20
dvOpunrdpeo-KOs, Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22
dv0po,7ros, Rom. 1:23; 2:9, 29; 3:4, 5; I Cor. 2:5, 9; 3:3, 4, 21; 9:85
14:2; 15:21 (Ms), 33, 39; II Cor. 8:21; 12:4; Gal. 1:1, 10 (ter),
11,12; 2:6; 3:15 (Ms); Eph. 6:7; Phil. 2:7, 8; Col. 3:23; IThess.
2:1,6, 13; 4:8; ITim. 2:5 (bis); 6:16; Titus 1:14
dvdijros, Rom. 1 : 14
dVoi&s, Eph. 6 : 19
dvopla, II Cor. 6:14; I Tim. 1:9; Titus 2:14
dvd<nos, II Tim. 1 : 9
dvrairoBopa, Rom. 11:9
dvrucet'/icvos, I Cor. 16:9
dvTiXypif/is, I Cor. 12:28
avrtAvrpov, I Tim. 2:6
dvwdTaKTos, I Tim. 1 : 9
d7rdvTi70-is, I Thess. 4:17
dirapxy, Rom. 16:5; I Cor. 15:20, 23; 16:15
dirdrrj, II Thess. 2 : IO
d7rei'0eia, Rom. 11:32
dircXtvOepos, I Cor. 7:22
an-torta, I Tim. 1 : 13
d7rio-Tos, I Cor. 6:6; 14:23, 24; II Cor. 6:14, 15
dn-Xdrijs, Rom. 12:8; II Cor. 9:11, 13; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22
dird8tt£is, I Cor. 2:4
diroSoxy, I Tim. 4: 10
d7n>icd\vi/tts, Rom. 2:5; 16:25; I Cor. 14:6; II Cor. 12:1; Gal. 1:12;
2:2; Eph. 1:17; 3:3
dird\avo-is, I Tim. 6:17
d7ro\oyta, II Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1:16
d7roAi$Tpa><7-is, I Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30
dwoo-ToX-q, Rom. 1:5; Gal. 2:8
d7rdo-ToAos, Rom. 1:1; 11:13; I Cor. 1:1; 9:1, 2; 12:28 (bis), 29;
15:9; II Cor. 1^1; 8:23; 11:13; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; 4:11;
Phil. 2:25; Col. 1:1; IThess. 2:7; ITim. 1:1; 2:7; II Tim. 1:1
11; Titus 1:1 14

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 15
diroropia, Rom. 11:22 (Ms)
dirwXeta, Rom. 9:22; Phil. 1:28; 3:18; ITim. 6:9
dpd, Rom. 3 : 14
dpyvpiov, I Cor. 3:12
dpto-Kia, Col. 1:10
dper-i,, Phil. 4:8
dpiraypos, Phil. 2 : 6
dpirai, I Cor. 5:11; 6:iO
dppaj3<jjv, Eph. 1 : 14
dpo-evoKotirijs, I Cor. 6:9; I Tim. 1: 10
iipayv, Rom. 1:27; Gal. 3:28
dpros, I Cor. 10:17; TI Cor. 9:I°; II Thess. 3:7
dpxdyyeXos, I Thess. 4:16
dpxn, Rom. 8:38; I Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21; Phil. 4:15; Col. 1:16;
2:10; II Thess. 2:13
do-efSys, Rom. 5:6; I Tim. 1:9
do-£/3eta, Rom. 1:18; 11:26; II Tim. 2:17
do-eAyeux, Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:20
do-Oiveux, I Cor. 2:3; 15:43; II Cor. 12:9, 10; 13:4; Gal. 4:13
aaoqtos, Eph. 5:15
do-iris, Rom. 3 : 13
daryp, I Cor. 15:41 (ter)
dacpdXeia, I Thess. 5 : 2
daurrla, Eph. 5:18; Titus 1:6
dnpia, Rom. 1:26; 9:21; I Cor. 11:15; 15:42; II Cor. 6:8; 11:21;
II Tim. 2:21
dro/tos, I Cor. 15:52
airdpKeia, II Cor. 9:8; I Tim. 6:6
d<pu8ta, Col. 2 : 23
dcpOapaia, Rom. 2:7; I Cor. 15:42, 53; Eph. 6:24; II Tim. 1:10
dcpoppy, Rom. 7:8, 11; Gal. 5:13; II Cor. 5:12; 11:12
datpoavvy, II Cor. 11 : 1, 17, 21
dcpptov, Rom. 2:20; I Cor. 15:36
/Sa^ds, ITim. 3:13
pdOos, Rom. 8:39; 11:33; n Cor- 8:2
jidirTiapa, Eph. 4 : 5
fidppapos, Rom. 1:14; I Cor. 14:11 (Ms); Col. 3:10
jSapos, II Cor. 4:17; I Thess. 2:7
fiaaiXeia, I Cor. 15:50; Gal. 5:21 15

16 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
/Je'jS^Xos, I Tim. 1:9
Beviapeiv, Rom. n :i; Phil. 3:5
/3t'0Xos, Phil. 4:3
/3i(i)tikos, I Cor. 6:3, 4
fiXao-cpypia, Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; ITim. 6:4
/SXdacpypos, I Tim. 1 : 13 ; II Tim. 3 : 2
fipicpos, II Tim. 3:15
(ipupa, Rom. 14:15, 20; I Cor. 3:2; 8:8, 13
Ppwais, Rom. 14:17, 20; II Cor. 9:10; Col. 2:16
ydyypaiva, II Tim. 2:17
yaXa, I Cor. 3 : 2
yao-ryp, I Thess. 5:3; Titus 1:12
ytveaXoyta, I Tim. 1:4; TitUS 3:9
yo/os, II Cor. 11:26; Phil. 3:5
yempyiov, I Cor. 3 : 9
y?, I Cor. 8:5; 15:46; Eph. 3:15
yivuto-Kurv, Rom. 7 : 1
yXio-o-a, I Cor. 12: 10 (Ms), 28, 30; 13:8; 14:5 (Ms), 6, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23,
27,40
yviopy, I Cor. 7:25; II Cor. 8:10
yiwis, Rom. 11:33; ICor.8:i,io; 12:8; 13:8; 14:6; IICor.6:5; 8:7
yovevs, Rom, 1:30
ypdppa, Rom. 2:27, 29; 7:6; II Cor. 3:6, 7
ypappareus, I Cor. 1:20; II Tim. 3:15
ypacpy, Rom. 1:3; 16 : 26
yvpvorys, Rom. 8:35; II Cor. 11:27
yvvaiicdpiov, II Tim. 3 : 6
ywij, I Cor. 5:1; 9:5; 11:8 (Ms), 9 (Ms), 11 (Ms); Gal. 4:4; I Tim. 5:9
Saipoyiov, I Cor. 10:20, 21 (Ms); I Tim. 4:1
SaKpvov, II Cor. 2 : 4
aiyo-is, II Cor. 9: 14; Eph. 6: 18 (Ms)
8«A«j, II Tim. 1 : 6
8e£ids, Rom. 8:34; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1
8«r/«os, Philem. 1, 9
Seo-ftds, II Tim. 2 : 9
StdjSoXos, I Tim. 3:11
SiadyKy, II Cor. 3:6; Gal. 4 : 24
Staicovta, Rom. 12:7; I Cor. 12:5; 16:15; Eph. 4:12; ITim. 1-12-
II Tim. 4:11 16

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 17
8td,«,vos, Rom. 13:4 (bis);. I Cor. 3:5; II Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 23;
Gal. 2:17; Col. 1:7; IThess. 3:2
SiaKpio-is, Rom. 14:1; I Cor. 12:10
8toXoy«r/ids, Rom. 14:1; I Tim. 2:8
8unrapaTpi/3y, I Tim. 6:5
Sioo-toXiJ, Rom. 3:22; 10:12; I Cor. 14:7
otarpocpy, I Tim. 6 : 8
SioW/caXta, I Tim. 5:17; II Tim. 3 : 16
8i8do-(caXos, Rom. 2:20; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11; I Tim. 2:7:
II Tim. 1:11
StSaxy, Rom. 6:17; I Cor. 14:6; II Tim. 4:2
SucaiOKpiaia, Rom. 2 : 5
StKotos, Rom. 3:10; 5:7; II Thess. 1:5; I Tim. 1:9
SiKaioaHvy, Rom. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22; 4:3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 22; 5:21; 6:13, 16;
8:10; 9:30(^,31; 10:4,10; 14:17; I Cor. 1:30; II Cor. 5:21;
6:14; 11:15; Gal. 2:21; 3:6; 5:5; Eph. 4:24; 5:9; Phil. 1:10;
3:6; ITim. 6:11; II Tim. 2:22; 3:16; Titus 3:4
SiKalmpa, Rom. 5 : 16
SiKaicaais, Rom. 5:18
81/07, II Thess. 1 : 9
SiXOo-rao-la, Gal. 5 : 20
Sti/ros, II Cor. 11:27
8«oyp,ds, Rom. 8:35; II Cor. 12:10; II Tim. 3:11
Smooths, I Tim. 1 : 13
8dy/*a, Eph. 2:15 ,
SoKipy, Rom. 5:3; II Cor. 8:1; 13:3
SdXos, Rom. 1:29; II Cor. 12:16; I Thess. 2:3
80/10, Eph. 4:8
86£a, Rom. 2:7, 10; 4:20; 9:23; 15:7; I Cor. 2:7; 10:31; 11:7 (Ms),
rS; 15:41 (quater), 42; II Cor. 1:20; 3:7, 8, 9 (Ms), n (Ms), 18
(Ms); 4:17; 6:8; 8:23; Eph. 1:6, 12; 3:13; Phil. 1:10; 2:10;
4:19; Col.3:4; IThess. 2:6; II Thess. 2:14; ITim. 1:17; 3:16;
II Tim. 2:10
8do-is, Phil. 4:15
SovXda, Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:24; 5:1
SoCXos, Rom. 1:1; 6:16 (bis), 17, 20; I Cor. 7:21, 22 (bis), 23; 12:13;
II Cor. 4:5; Gal. 1:10; 3:28; 4:1,7; Eph. 6:7, 8; Phil. 1:1; 2:7;
Col. 3:11; 4:12; Titus 1:1; Philem. 15 (bis)
Svvapis, Rom. 1:4, 16, 20; 8:38; 15:13, 19 (Ms); I Cor. 1:18, 24;
2:4,5; 4:20; 12:9,28,29; 15:24,43; II Cor. 1:8; 6:7; 8:3 (bis);
17

18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
12:12; 13:4 (bis); Gal. 3:5; Eph. 1:21; 3:16; Col. i:n, 29;
IThess. 1:5; II Thess. 1:7, 11; 2:9; II Tim. 1:6,8
Swards, I Cor. 1 : 26
Svacpypta, II Cor. 6 : 8
'E^patos, II Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5 (Ms)
iyKpdrtia, Gal. 5 : 23
iSpaiiopa, I Tim. 3:15
iOcXoOpyo-Keta, Col. 2 : 23
lOvos, Rom. 2:14; 3:29 (Ms); 9:24, 30; 11:12, 13; 15:10, 12 (bis), 18;
I Cor. 1:23; 12:2; II Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:15; ITim. 2:7; 3:16
elSos, II Cor. 5:7
£t8o)Xdfl«Tos, I Cor. 8 : 7
dSuiXoXdrpys, I Cor. 5:11
dSioXoXarpia, I Cor. 6:9; 10:7; Gal. 5:20; Col. 3:5
dSioXov, II Cor. 6: 16
ekeov, I Cor. 11:7; II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; 3:10
elXiKpivaa, I Cor. 5:8; II Cor. 1:12; 2:17
dpyvy, Rom. 1:7; 2:10; 3:17; 5:1; 8:6; 14:17; 15:13; I Cor. 1:3;
7:15; 14:33; 16:11; II Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; 5:22; 6:16; Eph. 1:2;
2:15, 17 (bis); 6:23; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; I Thess. 1:1; 5:2;
II Thess. 1:2; ITim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2; 2:22; Titus 1:4; Philem.3
iKSiKyais, Rom. 12:19; II Cor. 7:11; II Thess. 1:8
IkSikos, Rom. 13:4; I Thess. 4:6
iK^yryais, I Tim. 1 : 4
iK^yr&v, Rom. 3:11
iKKXyo-ia, I Cor. 11:18; 14:5, 19, 28, 35; II Cor. 8:23; I Tim. 3:15
e«XeKTds, Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:11; Titus 1:1
iicXoyy, Rom. 9 : 1 1 ; 11:5
Ikowios, Philem. 14
iXtypos, II Tim. 3:16
cXtos, Rom. 9:23; 15:9; Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:4; I Tim. 1:2; II Tim.
1:2, 16, 18
iXtvOtpia, II Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:13
iXevdepos, I Cor. 7:21, 22; 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:11
'BXXijv, Rom. 1:14, 16; 2:9, 10; 3:9; 10:12; I Cor. 1:22, 24; 10:32;
12:13; Gal. 2:4; 3:28
eXn-ts, Rom. 4:18 (Ms); 5:2, 4; 8:20, 24; I Cor. 9:10 (Ms); 13:13;
II Cor. 3:12; 10:15; Gal. 5:5; Eph. 2:12; 4:4; IThess. 2:19;
4:13; 5:8; II Thess. 2:16; Titus 1:1; 3:7
18

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 19
evovTt'os, Titus 2 : 8
ivSetypa, II Thess. 1:4
IvSeiiis, Rom. 3:25; Phil. 1:28
ivipytta, Eph. 4:16; II Thess. 2:9, 11
ivipyypa, I Cor. 12:6
iveo-riis, Rom. 8:38; I Cor. 3:22
evtaurds, Gal. 4: IO
ivKoiry, I Cor. 9:12
ivreviis, I Tim. 4:5
ivroXy, I Cor. 7:19; 14:38; Eph. 6:2; Titus 1:14
ivrpoiry, I Cor. 6:4; 15:34
Hovaia, Rom. 9:21; 13:1 (Ms); I Cor. 7:37; 9:4,5,6; 11:10; 15:24;
Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16; 2:10; II Thess. 3:9
iopry, Col. 2:16
«rayyeXta, Rom. 9:9; Gal. 3:18 (bis), 29; 4:23, 28; Eph. 6:2; I Tim.
4:9; II Tim. 1:1
£7roivos, Rom. 13:3; Eph. 1:6, 12, 14; Phil. 1:10; 4:8
iiravopOaiais, II Tim. 3: 16
iiriyetos, Phil. 2 : IO
eVtyvajo-is, Rom. 1:28; 3:20; 10:2; Phil. 1:9; Col. 2:2; 3:10; ITim.
2:4; II Tim. 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1; Philem. 6
«ri'0eo-is, I Tim. 4: 14
iiriOvpyrys, I Cor. 10:6
imOvpia, Rom. 7:8; 13:14; Gal. 5:16; Col. 3:5; I Thess. 2:17; 4:5;
ITim. 6:9; II Tim. 3:7
iiriopKos, I Tim. 1 : 10
iiriiroOyais, II Cor. 7:11
imiroOia, Rom. 15:23
iiriffKOiry, I Tim. 3 : 1
iiriaroXy, I Cor. 16:3; II Cor. 3:3; 10:11; II Thess. 2:2, 15
imrayy, Rom. 16:26; I Cor. 7:6; II Cor. 8:8; I Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:3;
2:15
iirirpoiros, Gal. 4 : 2
iirixopyyia, Phil. 1:19
eVoupdvtos, Phil. 2 : 10
ipyaala, Eph. 4:19
ipydrys, II Cor. 11:13; II Tim. 2:15
epyov, Rom. 2:7; 3:20, 28; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 10:19; 11:6; 15:18; Gal.
2:16 (ter); 3:2, 5, 10; Eph. 2:9, 10; 4:12; Phil. 1:22; Col. 3:17;
II Thess. 1:11; I Tim. 2:10; 6:17; II Tim. 4:5; Titus 3:5, 8, 14
19

20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
ipypia, I Cor. 12:10; H Cor. 11:26
ipiOia, II Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Phil. 1:16; 2:2
Ipis, Rom. 1:29; 13:13; I Cor. 1:11; 3:3; II Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20;
Phil. 1:15; ITim. 6:4; Titus 3:9
ipirerov, Rom. 1 : 23
lo-cnrrpov, I Cor. 13 : 12
eTcpdyX<ocro-os, I Cor. 14:21
(Toipacria., Eph. 6: 1 5
IVot/ios, II Cor. 10:6
tvoyyeXtov, Rom. 1:2; II Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6; II Thess. 2:14
evayyeXio-rys, Eph. 4:11; II Tim. 4 : 5
riyevijs, I Cor. 1 : 26
tvSoKt'a, Phil. 1:15; II Thess. 1:11
evXoyta, Rom. 15:29; II Cor. 9:5, 6 (bis); Eph. 1:3
cvvoia , Eph. 6 : 7
eiaipeia, ITim. 2:2; 4:8; 6:3; ITim. 6:11; II Tim. 3:5; Titus 1:1
tvaxypoo-uvy, I Cor. 12:23
evrpaireXta, Eph. 5:4
fva\ypta, II Cor. 6:8
evxapio-Tta, Col. 2:7; 4:2; IThess. 3:9; II Cor. 9:11; Eph. 5:4; Phil.
4:6; I Tim. 4:3, 4
evwola, II Cor. 2:15; Eph. 5:2; Phil. 4:18
icpevperys, Rom. 1 : 30
!x0pa, Rom. 8:7; I Cor. 15:26; Gal. 5:20; II Thess. 3:15
«X^pds, Rom. 5:10; 11:28; Gal. 4:16; Col. 1:20
(tfXos, Rom. 10:2; 13:13; I Cor. 3:3; II Cor. 7:11; 11:2; 12:20; Gal.
5:20; Phil. 3:6
£yXo>rys, Gal. 1:14; Titus 2:14
typia, Phil. 3:7, 8
fijV^o-is, I Tim. 6:4; Titus 3:9
£uyds, Gal. 5 : 1 ; I Tim. 6 : 1
tvpy, I Cor. 5 : 8 (bis) ; Gal. 5 : 9
fay, Rom. 2:7; 5:18,21; 6:4,22,23; 7:10; 8:6,10,38; 11:15; I Cor.
3:22; H Cor. 2:16 (Ms); Gal. 6:8; Phil. 1:20; 2:16; 4:3; ITim.
1:16; 4:9; II Tim. 1:1, 10; Titus 1:1; 3:7
£wtes, Rom. 14:9; II Tim. 4:1
yyairypevos, Col. 3: 12
^XtKta, Eph. 4 : 13 20

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 21
^Xios, I Cor. 15:41
ypipa, Rom. 2:5, 16; 13:13; I Cor. 4:3; 15:31; II Cor. 4:16 (bis);
11:28; Gal. 4:10; Phil. 2:16; I Thess. 2:9; 3:10; 5:2, 5, 8;
II Thess. 3:8; ITim. 5:5; II Tim. 1:4
yo~oxla, II Thess. 3:12; I Tim. 2:11, 12
OaXaacra, II Cor. II : 26
Odvaros, Rom. 1:32; 6:9,16,21,23; 7:10,13(6*5); 8:6,38; ICor. 3:22;
15:21, 55 (bis); II Cor. 1:10; 2:16 (Ms); 4:11; 7:10; 11:23;
Phil. 1:20; 2:8, 9, 27, 30
Oavpa, II Cor. 11:14
Ocar pov, I Cor. 4:9
Oeiorys, Rom. 1 : 20
OiXypa, Rom. 15:32; I Cor. 1:1; 16:12; II Cor. 1:1; 8:5; Eph. 1:1;
Col. 1:1; 4:12; I Thess. 4:3; 5:18; II Tim. 1:1
OcpiXios, I Cor. 3:10; I Tim. 6:19
0eds, Rom. 1:2, 4, 17, 18, 21; 2:17; 3:5, 18, 21, 22; 4:2, 17; 7:25;
8:7,8,9,14,16,17,27,33; 9:5,26; 10:2; 11:22 (iis); 13:1(6*5);
15:32; I Cor. 1:1, 3, 20, 24 (6*5), 30; 2:5, 6; 3:8, 9 (Ms), 16;
4:1; 7:24,40; 8:4,6; 10:20; 12:3; 14:2; II Cor. 6:16; 7:9,10;
11:2; 13:4 (6w); Gal. 4:8; Eph. 1:1; 4:6; Phil. 2:15; 3:3;
Col. 1:1; 3:12; IThess. 2:1, 13; 5:18; II Thess. 1:8; 2:4 (Ms);
ITim. 1:4, 17; 2:5; 6:17; II Tim. 1:1, 8; Titus 1:1
dcocrifiua, I Tim. 2 : IO
Oeoarvyys, Rom. 1 : 30
OyXvs, Gal. 3 : 28
Oypa, Rom. 11:9
Oyplov, Titus 1:12
OXufm, Rom. 2:9; 8:35; ICor. 7:28; II Cor. 2:4; 6:4; 7:13; 8:2, 13;
Phil. 1:17; IThess. 1:6; II Thess. 1:6
6pyo-Keia, Col. 2:18
0pdvos, Col. 1:16
dvydryp, II Cor. 6:18
6vp6s, Rom. 2:8; II Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8
Ovpa, I Cor. 16:9
Ovaia, Rom. 12:1; Eph. 5:2; Phil. 4:18
Ompai, I Thess. 5:8
lapa, I Cor. 12:9, 28, 30
ISimrys, I Cor. 14:23, 24; II Cor. 11:6 21

22 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
UpoOvros, I Cor. 10:28
'lyo-ovs, II Cor. 11:4
IXapdr^s, Rom. 12:8
tXaori/ptov, Rom. 3:25
Ipanapos, I Tim. 2 : 9
ids, Rom. 3 : 13
'lovSotos, Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10, 17, 28, 29; 3:9, 29; 9:24; 10:12; ICor.
1:22, 23, 24; 9:20; 10:32; 12:13; H Cor. 11:24; Gal. 2:14, 15;
3:28; Col. 3:11
lo-drys, II Cor. 8:14 (Ms)
'lapayX, Rom. 9:6; Phil. 3:5
'lapayXlrys, Rom. 8:4; 11:1; II Cor. 11:22
i'x^vs, I Cor. 15:39
KaOaipeais, II Cor. 10:4, 8; 13:10
Kaivorys, Rom. 6:4; 7:6
Kaipds, Rom. 5:6; I Cor. 4:4; Gal. 4:10; 6:9, 10
KaKto, Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 5:8; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Titus 3:3
KaKoyOia, Rom. i : 29
kukos, Rom. 7:19; 12:17 (bis)> I3:I°; 14:20; ICor. 10:6; IThess.
5:15 (Ms); II Tim. 4:14
jcaKovpyos, II Tim. 2:9
icaXdpy, I Cor. 3:12
KaXXieXatos, Rom. 1 1 : 24
KaXds, Rom. 12:17; 14:21; II Cor. 8:20; Gal. 4:18 (bis)
KaXvppa, II Cor. 3:15
KapSta, Rom. 2:5, 29; 6:17; 10:10; ICor. 2:9; II Cor. 2:4; 3:3; 5:12;
Col. 3:22; IThess. 2:17; ITim. 1:5; II Tim. 2:22
Kapiros, Rom. 6:21; Phil. 1:22
KaraKpipa, Rom. 5:16; 8: 1
/caTaKpio-ts, II Cor. 7:3
KaTaXaXid, II Cor. 1 2 : 20
KardXaXos, Rom. 1 : 30
KaraXXayy, Rom. 11:15
Kardwiis, Rom. 11:8
Kardpa, Gal. 3 : IO, 13
Kardo-rypa, TitUS 2:3
KaracrToXrj, I Tim. 2 : 9
KdTax^dvios, Phil. 2 : 10
Karyyopia, TitUS 1 : 6 22

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 23
KarotKyrypiov, Eph. 2:22
Kavx^a, Rom. 4:2; I Cor. 9:16; II Cor. 1:13; 5:12; Phil. 2:16
Kavxyais, II Cor. 7:4; I Thess. 2:19
KcXevo-pa, I Thess. 4: 16
Kcvo8o£ta, Phil. 2 : 2
xevds, Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2 : 16 (bis) ; I Thess. 3 : 5
KtpSos, Phil. 1:21; 3:7; Titus 1:10
xecpoXi;, I Cor. 11:3 (Ms), 4; Eph. 1:22; 5:23 (bis)
Krjpvypa, TitUS 1:3
Kypvi, I Tim. 2:7; II Tim. 1: 11
kiVSwos, Rom. 8:35; II Cor. 11:26 (octies)
kXoSos, Rom. 11 : 19
kAxuW, Rom. 12:15
kXiirrys, I Cor. 6: 10; I Thess. 5:2, 4
nXypovopia, Eph. 5 : 5
KXypovopos, Rom. 4:13; 8:17 (6zs); Gal. 3:29; 4:7
KXyo-is, II Tim. 1:9
kXi^tos, Rom. 1 : 6
KoiXm, Gal. 1:15
Koivatvia, I Cor. 1:9; 10:16 (bis); II Cor. 6:14; Gal. 2:9; Phil. 2:1
Koivwvds, I Cor. 10:18, 20; II Cor. 1:7; Philem. 17
koiti;, Rom. 9: 10; 13 : 13
kokkos, I Cor. 15:37
KoXaKia, I Thess. 2 : 5
kotos, II Cor. 6 : 5 ; 11:23,27; Gal. 6:17; II Thess. 3:8
Koapos, Rom. 1:20; 4:13; 5:13; 11:12,15; ICor.3:22; 14:10; II Cor.
5:19; Gal. 6:14; Eph. 1:4; Phil. 2:15; ITim. 3:16
/cpdros, I Tim. 6:16
Kpavyy, Eph. 4:31
icpeas, Rom. 14:21; I Cor. 8:13
Kpipa, Rom. 13:2; ICor. 11:29,34; ITim. 3:6; 5:12
Kpto-is, I Tim. 5 : 24
Kpirypiov, I Cor. 6 : 2
kryvos, I Cor. 15:39
kti'o-is, Rom. 1:20; 8:39; II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15
KvfiipvyorK, I Cor. 12:28
kvkXos, Rom. 15:19
KvpfiaXov, I Cor. 13 : 1
*cvptos, Rom. 1:7; 10:9; 16:8, 11, 12 (bis), 13, 22; I Cor. 1:3; 4:17;
7:22,39; 8:6; 9:1,2; 10:21 (Ms); 11:11; 12:3; 15:58; 16:19;
23

24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
II Cor. 2:12; 4:5; 11:17; Gal. 4:1; 5:I°; Eph. 2:21; 4:1, 5, r7;
5:8; 6:10,21; Phil. 2:10; 3:1; 4:2,10; Col. 3:17; 4:1; IThess.
5:12; II Thess. 3:4, 12; Philem. 16
KvptoV^s, Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16
K<Sp.os, Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:21
Xads, Rom. 9:25, 26; H Cor. 6:16
Xaxavoj/, Rom. 14:2
Xetrovpyds, Rom. 15:16; Phil. 2:25
X«W, II Tim. 4:17
Xypins, Phil. 3:15
XrjO-rys, II Cor. 11:26
Xtflos, I Cor. 3:12; II Cor. 3:7
Xippa, Rom. 11:5
Xip,ds, Rom. 8:35; II Cor. 11:27
Xoytaytds, II Cor. 10:5
Xoyopaxia, I Tim. 6 : 4
Xdyos, Rom. 9:28; 14:12; 15:18; I Cor. 1:17; 2:1, 4; 4:20; 14:9;
15:2; II Cor. 6:7; 8:7; Eph. 5:6; 6:19; Phil. 2:16; 4:15, 17;
Col. 2:23; 3:17; IThess. 1:5; 2:5, 13 (ter); 4:15; II Thess. 2:2,
15; ITim.4:5, 12; 5:17; 6:3; II Tim. 1:13
XotSopta, I Tim. 5 : 14
Xot'Sopos, I Cor. 5:11; 6:10
Xovrpov, Titus 3 : 5
Xviry, Rom. 9:2; II Cor. 2:1, 3; 9:1, 7; Phil. 2:27 (6m)
Xvo-is, I Cor. 7:27
udiccXXov, I Cor. 10:25
paKpoOvpia, Rom. 9:22; II Cor. 6:6; Gal. 5:23; Eph. 4:2; Col. 1:11;
3:12; II Tim. 4:2
paXaKos, I Cor. 6:9
papyapirys, I Tim. 2 : 9
paprvpia, I Tim. 3 : 7
p.dpTus,Rom. 1:9; ICor. 15:15; II Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; I Thess. 2 : 6, to
paraioXoyia, I Tim. 1 : 6
p-aratoXdyos, TitUS 1 : 9
p.aTatdT?js, Eph. 4:17
pdxaipa, Rom. 8:35
pdxy, II Cor. 7 : 5 ; H Tim. 2 : 23 ; Titus 3 : 9
p£0y, Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:20 24

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 25
peOvo-os, I Cor. s : 1 1 ; 6 : io
piXas, II Cor. 3 : 3
peXXov, Rom. 8:39; I Cor. 3:22
p.«Xos, Rom. 12:4, 5; I Cor. 12:14, 19, 20, 27; Eph. 4:25; 5:30
P-epis, II Cor. 6:15
pipos, Rom. 11:25; i5:i5, 24; ICor. 5:2; 11:18; 12:27; *3:9 (Ms),
10, 12; 14:27; II Cor. 1:13; 2:5; Col. 2:16
pto-lrys, Gal. 3:19; I Tim. 2:5
piaos, II Cor. 6:17; I Thess. 2:7; II Thess. 2:8
perdXypij/is, I Tim. 4:3'
perdvoia, Rom. 2:4; II Cor. 7:9, 10; II Tim. 2:25
peroxy, II Cor. 6: 14
pirpov, II Cor. 10:13; Eph. 4:13, 16
pyv, Gal. 4 : 10
pyryp, Gal. 1:15; 4:27; ITim. 5:2
p.jprpaXotas, I Tim. 1 : 9
pip-rrrys, ICor. 4:16; 11:1; Eph. 5:1; IThess. 1:6; 2:14
purBos, I Cor. 3:15; 9:17
p.veta, Eph. 1:10, 16; I Thess. 1:2; 3:6; Philem. 4
poixaXis, Rom. 7 : 3 (6m)
poixos, I Cor. 6 : 9
popcpy, Phil. 2:5, 7
poptptaais, II Cor. 3 : 5
p,dx0os, II Cor. 11:27; II Thess. 3:8
pWos, ITim. 1:4; Titus 1:14
pvarypiov, Rom. 16:25; I Cor. 4:1; 14:2
piapia, I Cor. 1:18, 23; 2:14; 3:19
puipoXoyia, Eph. 5:4
poipos, I Cor. 3 : 18
val, II Cor. 1:18, 19 (bis)
rads, I Cor. 3:16; 6:19; II Cor. 6:16 (6m); Eph. 2:21
vocpds, Rom. 1:4; 4:24; 6:4, 9, 13; 7:4; 8:11 (bis), 34; 10:8, 9; 11:15;
14:9; ICor. 15:12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 29,32; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20;
Phil. 3:11; Col. 2:12; II Tim. 2:8; 4:1
veopyvia, Col. 2 : 16 ,
veocpvros, I Tim. 3 : 6
veatiXy, I Thess. 4:17
v^tos, Rom. 2:20; ICor. 3:1; 13:11 (quater); Gal. 4:1, 3; Eph. 4:14;
I Thess. 2:7 25

26 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
vyo-rtia, II Cor. 6:5; 11:27
vikos, I Cor. 15:54
vopy, II Tim. 2:17
vofto8i8dcncaXos, I Tim. 1 : 7
vdp,os, Rom. 2:12 (6m), 13 (6m), 17, 23a, 25 (6m); 3:20, 21, 28, 31 (6m);
4:13,14,15; 5:13 (6m), 20; 6:14,15; 7:1,2, 7, 8, 9; 9:31; 10:4,5;
13:8, 10; I Cor. 9:20 (quater); Gal. 2:16 (ter), 19 (6m), 21; 3:2, 5,
10, 11, 18, 21, 23; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:4, 19, 24; 6:13; Phil. 3:5, 6, 9;
ITim. 1:9
vovOtaia, I Cor. 10:11; Eph. 6:4
vovs, Rom. 11:34; I Cor. 2:16 (6m); Phil. 4:7
vii, I Thess. 2:9; 3:10; 5:2, 6, 7 (6m); II Thess. 3:8; I Tim. 5:5;
II Tim. 1:4
ievia, Philem. 22
£tvos, Eph. 2:12, 19
ivXov, I Cor. 3:12; Gal. 3 : 13
oSyyos, Rom. 2 : 19
oSoMropta, II Cor. 11:26
68ds, Rom. 3:17
dSwi;, Rom. 9:2; I Tim. 6:10
otKta, I Cor. 11:22
oiKo&opy, Rom. 15:2; ICor.3:9; 14:3,5,26; II Cor. 5:1; 10:8; 13:10;
Eph. 4:13, 16, 29
oi«tos, Eph. 2:19; I Tim. 5:8
olKovopia, I Cor. 9: 17; Eph. 1 : 10; I Tim. 1:4
oiKovopos, I Cor. 4:1; Gal. 4:2; Titus 1:7
oTkos, Rom. 16:5; I Tim. 3:15; Titus 1:10; Philem. 2
oUTippos, Phil. 2:1; Col. 3:12
otvos, Rom. 14:21
dX^pos, I Cor. 5: 5; I Thess. 5:3; II Thess. 1:9; I Tim. 6:9
oXi'yos, Eph. 3:351 Tim. 4:8
6p.tXta, I Cor. 15:33
bpoiiapa, Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7
oveiSurpos, I Tim. 3 : 7
ovopa, Eph. 1:21; 5:20; Col. 3:17; II Thess. 3:6
ottXov, Rom. 6:13 (6m)
oirrao-ia, II Cor. 12:1
6pyy, Rom. 1:18; 2:5 (Ms), 8; 9:22; 13:4; Eph. 2:3; 4:31; Col. 3:8;
IThess. 5:9; ITim. 2:8 26

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 27
opos, I Cor. 13 : 2
60-idrijs, Eph. 4:24
6apy, II Cor. 2:16 (6m); Eph. 5:2; Phil. 4:18
ov, II Cor. 1 : 18, 19
ovpovos, Rom. 1:18; ICor. 8:5; 15:47; II Cor. 5:2; 12:2; Gal. 1:8;
Eph. 3:15; 6:9; Phil. 3:20; Col. 4:1; II Thess. 1:7
o?s, I Cor. 2 : 9
dcpeiXer^s, Rom. 1:14; 8:12; 15:27; Gal. 5:3
ocpeiXypa, Rom. 4:4 -
ocpOaXpobovXla, Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22
d</>0aXp.ds, I Cor. 2:9; 12:16 (6m); 15:52; Gal. 3:1
6xvpo>pa, II Cor. 10:4
oxjftoviov, I Cor. 9:6; II Cor. 11:8
iroyts, Rom. 11:9; I Tim. 6:9
irddos, Rom. 1:26; Col. 3:551 Thess. 4:5
irat8ay<i>yds, I Cor. 4:15; Gal. 3:24, 25
TnuSeta, I Cor. 14:20; Eph. 6:4; II Tim. 3:16
7rai8evTi/s, Rom. 2 : 20
irotStWij, Gal. 4:31
iraXaidi-ijs, Rom. 7 : 6
iraXivyevecrta, Titus 3 : 5
iravovpyia, II Cor. 4:2; Eph. 4: 14
iravroKpdrmp, II Cor. 6: 18
irapa/fao-is, Rom. 4: 15; I Tim. 2: 14
irapa/Jdrys, Gal. 2:18
trapdicXyo-is, I Cor. 14:3; II Cor. 1:3; 8:4; Phil. 2:1; II Thess. 2:16;
Philem. 7
irapapvOia, I Cor. 14:3
irapapvOiov, Phil. 2 : 1
irapyyopia, Col. 4:11
mxpflevos, II Cor. 11:2
irdpoSos, I Cor. 16:7
n-dpoiKos, Eph. 2:19
irapopyiapos, Eph. 4:26
irappyo-ia, II Cor. 3:12; 7:4; Eph. 6: 19; Phil. 1:20; Col. 2:15; ITim.
3:13; Philem. 8
™t^p, Rom. 4:", 12, 16, 17, 18; ICor. 1:3; 4:15; II Cor. 1:2; 6:17;
Gal. 1:1,3,4; Eph. 1:2; 4:6; Phil. 1:2;'- 2:10,22; Col. 1:3 (6m);
3:17; IThess. 1:1; 2:11; ITim. 1:2; 5:1; II Tim. 1:2; Titus
1:4; Philem. 3 27

28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
iraTpaXuxis, I Tim, i : 9
irapaxrpos, I Tim. 6 : 9
ireiroiOycris, II Cor. 8:22; Eph. 3:12; Phil. 3:4
irepifidXaiov, I Cor. 11:15
irtpucdBappa, I Cor. 4: 13
¦n-epiKccpaXaia, I Thess. 5 : 8
irepiiroiyais, I Thess. 5:9; II Thess. 2:14
irepiaaeia, II Cor. 10:15
irepiTopy, Rom. 2:25, 26, 27, 29; 3:30; 4:10 (Ms), 11, 12; 15:8; Gal.
2:12; 5:6,11; 6:15; Eph. 3:5; Col. 2:11; 3:10; 4:11
ircpfyypa, I Cor. 4:13
7rcravds, Rom. 1 : 23
jri&ivoXoyta, Col. 2:4
iriKpia, Rom. 3:14; Eph. 4:31
ttio-tis, Rom. 1:5, 17 (ter); 3:22, 25, 27, 28, 30; 4:13, 16 (bis); 5:1;
9:30,32; 10:6; 12:3; 14:22,23(6*5); 16:26; ICor. 12:9; 13:13;
II Cor. 5:7; 8:7; Gal. 2:16 (6m), 20; 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22, 24;
5:5,6,23; Eph. 2:8; 4:5; 6:23; Phil.3:9; IThess. 5:8; IIThess.
1:11; 2:13; ITim. 1:1, 4, 5, 14, 19; 2:7,15; 3:13; 4:12; 6:11;
II Tim. 1:13; 2:22; 3:15; Titus 1:1,4; 2:10; 3:15
wio-to's, II Cor. 6:15; I Tim. 4:10
irXdvy, I Thess. 2:3; H Thess. 2:11
irXeimv, II Tim. 2 : 16; 3:8
irXeovtKrys, I Cor. 5:11; 6:10
irXeove&a, Rom. 1:29; II Cor. 9:5; Eph. 4:19; I Thess. 2:5
irXyyy, II Cor. 6 : 5 ; 11:23
irXyKTys, TitUS 1 : 7
irXypoxpopla, I Thess. i : 5
irXypiopa, Rom. 13:10; 15:29
irXycrpovy, Col. 2 : 23
7tXoStos, Rom. 11:12 (6m), 33; Col. 2:2; ITim. 6:17
irvevpa, Rom. 1:4; 2:29; 5:5; 7:6; 8:4, 5, 9 (fer), 13, 14; 9:1; 14:17;
i5:i3, !6, 19; ICor. 2:4, 13; 6:17; 7:40; 12:3 (6m), 13; 14:2,16;
15:45; II Cor. 3:3, 6, 18; 6:6; 7:1; 11:4; Gal. 3:3; 4:29; 5:5,6,
18, 25 (6m); Eph. 2:18, 22; 4:4; 5:18; 6:18; Phil. 1:27; 2:1;
3:3; Col. 1:8; IThess. 1:5,6; IIThess. 2:2, 13; ITim. 1:6, 14
Titus 3:5
irvtvpaTtKos, I Cor. 2:14 (Ms); 3:1; 14:37; 15:44
7rotijua, Eph. 2 : 10
iroipyv, Eph. 4:11
iroiiov, Rom. 3:12 28

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 29
iroXepos, I Cor. 14:8
7rdXis, II Cor. 11:26; Titus 1:5
irovi;pta, Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 5:8
7rdvos, Col. 4:13
iropiapos, I Tim. 6:5,6
iropveia, I Cor. 5:1 (6m); Gal. 5:20; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5
7rdpviy, I Cor. 6 : 5
n-dpvos, I Cor. 5:9, 11; 6:9; I Tim. 1:10
ttoo-is, Rom. 14:17; Col. 2:16
7roTap,ds, II Cor. 11:26
irpaviradla, I Tim. 6 : II
irpairys, I Cor. 4:21; Gal. 5:23; 6:1; Eph.4:2; Col.3:i2; IITim. 2:25
irpeo-fivrys, Philem. 9
irpofiarov, Rom. 8:36
irpdyovos, II Tim. 1 : 3
7rpd^£o-ts, Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11; 3:11; IITim. 1:9
irpoKOiry, Phil. 1 : 12
irpoKpipa, I Tim. 5:21
irpovoia, Rom. 13 : 14
irpoo-evxy, Eph. 6:18
irpoaKapripyais, Eph. 6:18
irpdo-KX^crts, I Tim. 5:21
irpoaKoppa, Rom. 9:32; 14:13, 20; I Cor. 8:9
irpoa-KOiry, II Cor. 6:3
7rpoordTis, Rom. 16:2
irpoacpopd, Eph. 5 : 2
irpoaanroXypxI/la, Rom. 2 : 1 1 ; Eph. 6 : 9
Trpdowov, I Cor. 13:12 (6m); 14:25; II Cor. 1:10; 3:18; 4:6;
5:12; 8:23; 10:1, 7; 11:20; Gal. 2:6, 11; I Thess. 2:17;
IIThess. 1:9
irpdcpao-«, Phil. 1 : 18; I Thess. 2 : 5
irpocpyrela, Rom. 12:6; ICor. 12:10; 13:2,8; 14:6; ITim. 4:14
irpocpyrys, I Cor. 12:28, 29; 14:37; Eph. 4:11
irpftiTordicos, Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18
7TTi;vds, I Cor. 15:39
n-Tuxos, II Cor. 6 : 10
wvp, Rom. 12:20; I Cor. 3:13, 15; IIThess. 1:7
pd^Sos, ICor. 4:21
pypa, Rom. 10:17; II Cor. 12:4; Eph. 5:26; 6:18
29

30 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
pt£a, I Tim. 6 : io
pury, ICor. 15:52
pvTts, Eph. 5:27
crajiamO, Rom. 9: 29
trajS/Sarov, Col. 2 : 1 6
o-d\iriv£, I Thess. 4: 16
crapxiKOS, I Cor. 3:3 (6m)
o-dp|,Rom. 1:3; 2:28; 4:1; 8:3,4,5,8,9,12,13; 9 = 3,5; ICor. 1:26,
29; 6:16; 10:18; 15:50; II Cor. 1:17; 5:16 (6m); 7:1; 10:2,3
(Ms); Gal. 1:16; 2:20; 3:3; 4:23,29; 5:16; 6:12; Eph. 2:11 (6m);
5:31; 6:5,12; Phil. 1:22; 3:3,4,5; Col. 2:1; 3:22; ITim. 3:16;
Philem. 16
SaTav, II Cor. 12:7
o-ifiaapa, H Thess. 2:4
atXyvy, I Cor. 15:41
crepvorys, I Tim. 2:2; 3:4
o-ypaov, Rom. 15:19; I Cor. 1:22; 14:22; II Cor. 12:12; II Thess.
2:9; 3:i7
oTcdvSaXov, Rom. 9:32; 11:9; 14:13; I Cor. 1:23
aKtiracrpa, I Tim. 6:8
o-keBos, II Cor. 4:7; II Tim. 2:21
crxtd, Col. 2:17
o-kottos, Phil. 3 : 14
o-kotos, Rom. 2:19; II Cor. 4:6; 6:14; Eph. 5:8; IThess. 5:4, 6
o-KvplaXov, Phil. 3:8
%Kv8ys, Col. 3:11
<ro<pto, Rom. 11:33; ICor. 1:17, 22, 24, 30; 2:1, 4, 5, 6 (fer), 13; 12:8;
H Cor. 1:12; Eph. 1:8, 17; Col. 1:9, 28; 2:23; 3:16; 4:5
crowds, Rom. 1:14; I Cor. 1:20, 26; 6:5; Eph. 5:15
o-irippa, Rom. 1:3; 9:7 (6m), 8, 29; 11:1; II Cor. 9:10; 11:22; Gal.
3:29; IITim. 2:8
cririXos, Eph. 5:27
o-irXdyxvov, Phil. 1:8; 2:1; Col. 3:12
o-irov&y, Rom. 12:8; II Cor. 7:11; 8:7
o-raupds, Phil. 2 : 8
oretpos, Gal. 4:27
arevaypos, Rom. 8 : 26
o-Tevox<i)pta, Rom. 2:9; 8:35; II Cor. 6:4; 12:10
o-re'^avos, Phil. 4: 1; I Thess. 2: 19 30

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 31
o-rdpa, Rom. 10:10; II Cor. 13:1; II Tim. 4:17
orpaTMOTijs, II Tim. 2 : 3
o-tvXos, Gal. 2:9; I Tim. 3:15
o-uf j/tijtijs, I Cor. 1 : 20
crugvyos, Phil. 4:3
o-vpPovXos, Rom. 11:34
avppiroXos, Eph. 3:6; 5:7
o-vppipyrys, Phil. 3:17
o-up,7roXtTijs, Eph. 2:19
ovp<pa>vyo-K, II Cor. 6: 15
avpcpoivos, I Cor. 7 : 5
avvyvmpy, I Cor. 7:6
avvSeapos, Col. 3 : 14
o-w«oVis, I Cor. 10:29; II Cor. 4:2; I Tim. 1:5, 19; 3:9; II Tim. 1:3
awacSypos, II Cor. 8: 19
o-wepyds, I Cor. 3:8; II Cor. 1:24; 8:23; Col. 4:11
o-weo-is, Col. 1:9; IITim. 2:7
trwtW, Rom. 3:11
xrvvKardOeo-ts, II Cor. 6 : 1 6
<rvvKXijpovdp.os, Rom. 8:17; Eph. 3:6
oT)v(coiv<ovds, Rom. 11:17
o-vvoxv, II Cor. 2:4
crvvaapos, Eph. 3:6
avvrpippa, Rom. 3 : 16
aaSayy, Rom. 8:36
axypa, Phil. 2:8
axiapa, I Cor. 1:10, 18; 12:25
o-S>pa, Rom. 12:4, 5; I Cor. 6:16; 10:17; 12:12, 13, 16, 20, 27; 15:35,
38 (6m); II Cor. 12:2, 3; Eph. 2:16; 4:4; Col. 2:23; 3:15
atoryp, Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; ITim. 1:1; 4:10; Titus 2:14
o-iarypia, Rom. 1:16; 10:1,10; Phil. 1:19, 28; IThess. 5:8, 9; IIThess.
2:13; II Cor. 6 : 2 (6m) ; 7:10; IITim. 2:10; 3:15
cniHppovio-pos, II Tim. 1 : 6
o-coaSpoavvy, I Tim. 2:9, 15
raXaiiriopia, Rom. 3:16
rdiis, I Cor. 14:40
rcwreivocppocruvif, Eph. 4:12; Col. 2:18, 23; 3:12.
rdcpos, Rom. 3 : 13
rdxos, Rom. 16:20 31

32 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
TfKvlov, Gal. 4:19
T«cvov,Rom. 8:16, 17; 9:7,8; ICor.4:i4, 17; II Cor. 6:13; Gal. 4:28,
31; Eph. 2:3; 5:1,9; Phil. 2:15,22; IThess. 2:12; ITim. 1:1, 18;
IITim. 1:2; 2:1; Titus 1:4
TeXeios, I Cor. 14:20
reXos, Rom. 10:4; II Cor. 1:13; I Thess. 2:16
repos, Rom. 15:19; II Cor. 12:12; II Thess. 2:9
rerpdirovs, Rom. 1 : 23
rypyais, I Cor. 7:19 ,
npy, Rom. 2:7, 10; 9:21; I Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 12:23, 24; Col. 2:23;
IThess. 4:4; ITim. 1:17; 5:17; 6:1, 16; IITim. 2:21 (bis)
roiros, Rom. 15:23; Eph. 4:27
rpdp.os, I Cor. 2:3; II Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; Phil. 2:12; II Tim. 3:8
rpoc>ds, I Thess. 2 : 7
tvttos, Rom. 5:14; ICor. 10:6; Phil.3:i7; IThess. 1:7; IIThess.3:9;
I Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7
i-vtpXds, Rom. 2:19
v/3pis, II Cor. 12:10
v/?pio-njs, Rom. 1:30
vtotfecrta, Rom. 8:15, 23; Eph. 1:5
vtds, Rom. 1:4; 8:14; 9:26; II Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:7, 26; 4:6, 7 (6m);
IThess. 5:5 (Ms)
ipvos, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16
imaKoy, Rom. 1:5; 6:16 (Ms); 15:18; 16:26
xnrep/SoXy, Rom. 7:13; I Cor. 12:31; II Cor. 1:8; 4:17 (bis); Gal. 1:13
vn-cp^cpcLvos, Rom. 1:30
virepoxy, I Cor. 2:1; I Tim. 2 : 2
iiryperys, I Cor. 4:1
vn-vos, Rom. 13:11
viroKpuris, I Tim. 4: 2
viropvyais, II Tim. 1:5.
virop-ovrj, Rom. 2:7; 5:3; 8:25; II Cor. 1:6; 6:4; 12:12; Col. 1:11;
ITim. 6:11
virdvota, I Tim. 6 : 4
v7rorayi7, 1 Tim. 2:11; 3:4
v7roTvjr<ucrts, I Tim. 1:16; II Tim. 1:13
varipyo-is, Phil. 4:11
v^ijXds, Rom. 1 1 : 20
vif/os, Eph. 4:8
vtpwpa, Rom. 8 : 39 32

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 33
$apio-<ubs, Phil. 3 : 5
cpappaKia, Gal. 5:20
<l>6wos, Rom. 1:29; Gal. 5:20; Phil. 1:15; ITim. 6:4; Titus 3:3
<p0opd, I Cor. 15:42; Gal. 6:8; Col. 2:22
<l>X6i, II Thess. 1:7
t/>d/3os, Rom. 3:18; 8:15; 13:3; I Cor. 2:3; II Cor. 7:1, 5, 11, 15;
Eph. 5:21; 6:5; Phil. 2:12; ITim. 5:20
tpdvos, Rom. 1 : 29
cppaiairdrys, TitUS I : IO
<ppdvj/o-is, Eph. 1:8
cpvXaKy, II Cor. 6:5; 11:23
4>vXy, Rom. 11: 1; Phil. 3:5
cpvcas, Rom. 1:26; 2:14,27; 11:21, 24 (ter); Gal. 2:15; 4:8; Eph. 2:3
cpvaimais, II Cor. 12:20
cpiavy, I Cor. 14:7; I Thess. 4: 16
<pSs, Rom. 2:19; II Cor. 4:6; 6:14; 11:14; Eph. 5:8, 9, 13; I Thess.
5:5; ITim. 6:16
cputo-ryp, Phil. 2:15
cparria-pos, II Cor. 4:6
X<upa>v, Rom. 12:15
XaXxds, I Cor. 13 : 1
xapd, Rom. 14:17; 15:13,32; II Cor. 1:15; Gal. 5:22; Phil. 1:4; 2:29;
4:1; IThess. 1:6; IITim. 1:5; Philem. 7
Xdp«, Rom. 1:5, 7; 4:4,16; 5:15; 6:14,15,17; 7:25; 11:5, 6; I Cor.
1:3; 10:30; 15:10, 57; II Cor. 1:2, 12; 2:14; 8:16; 9:8, 15;
Gal. 1:3,6; Eph. 1:2; 2:5; 4:29; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2, 11; 3:16;
4:6; IThess. 1:1; 2:19; IIThess. 1:2; 2:16; ITim. 1:2, 12;
II Tim. 1:2, 3, 9; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3
Xapiapa, I Cor. 7:7; 12:4, 28, 30
X^tXos, I Cor. 14:21
X«p*>v, II Tim. 4:20
X«p, I Cor. 12:15; Gal. 3:19; I Tim. 5:22
xdpTos, I Cor. 3:12
XP«s I Cor. 12:21, 24; IThess. 1:8; 4:9, 12; 5:1
Xpj?o-Tds,'I Cor. 15:33
Xpyarm-ys, Rom. 3:12; 11:22 (6m); II Cor. 6:6; Gal. 5:23; Eph. 2:7;
Col. 3:12
Xpto-rds, Rom. 12:5; 16:5,7,9,10; ICor. 3:1; 4:10,15; 6:15; Phil.
1:21; 2:1; Col. 1:28; Philem. 8
33

34 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Xptords 'Vovs, Rom. 16:3; I Cor. 4:15; Phil. 3:3; 4:19; IThess. 2:14
XpoVos, Rom. 7:1; 16:25; II Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2
Xpvo-ibv, I Cor. 3: 12; I Tim. 2:9
i/raXp-ds, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16
i/ftvSdSeXcpoi, II Cor. 11:26 ,
^evoWdoroXos, II Cor. Ii: 13
^revSoXdyos, I Tim. 4:2
^eSSos, II Thess. 2 : 9
if/tvo-Tys, Rom. 3:4; I Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:12
\pi0vpio-p6s, II Cor. 12:20
\fiiOvpuTry^, Rom. 1 : 30
irvxy, I Cor. 15:45; Eph. 6:7; Phil. 1:27; Col. 3:23
i/'v'xos, II Cor. 11:27
4oy, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16
<5pa, Rom. 13:11; I Cor. 15:30; II Cor. 7:8; Gal. 2:5; I Thess. 2:17;
Philem. 15

34

III. DETAILED STUDY OF SELECTED QUALITATIVE NOUNS
Ndp.os
i. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — This important
word appears in Paul 117 times. It occurs frequently in some of the
other New Testament literature, but is entirely absent from the Johan-
nine Epistles and the Apocalypse, as well as from the Petrine Epistles and
the Gospel of Mark. Outside the Pauline writings it is used generally
with the article and with reference to the Mosaic law or to the Old
Testament. For example, Matt. 12:5: "Or have ye not read in the
law that on the Sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the Sab
bath and are guiltless ?" John 12:34: "We have heard out of the law
that the Christ abideth forever." See also Luke 2:22; John 1:46;
Acts 28:23; Hdx 9:22; Jas. 1:10. In Paul, however, vdp.os frequently
occurs qualitatively, with special emphasis upon the essential law
quahty of law, its "lawness," so to speak. Yet one must not fall into
the error of thinking that it is always the legalistic quahty of law that is
prominent in the apostle's mind. In Rom. 13 : 10, wXypmpa ovv vopov rj
dydiry, it is the ethical element of law which is to the fore. Nd/ios used
qualitatively presents this emphasis upon the essential character of law
while at the same time designating it as the law referred to in the context.
This is usually, but not invariably, the Mosaic law, and (a) the Mosaic
law as a historic regime; (6) the Mosaic law legahsticahy interpreted;
or (c) the Mosaic law ethically understood.1
• Of the 117 instances in Paul, 46 are preceded by the article (usually
restrictive), the context in the great majority of cases showing that the
law referred to is that of the Old Testament. Among other instances
may be cited: Rom. 2:146, where the naturally lawless Gentiles are
credited with actions that are in accordance -with the Jewish law; 2:20,
where the Jew is represented as having or believing himself to have the
form of knowledge and truth in the Law; 3:21, where it is affirmed
1 To say that a noun is qualitative is not to deny to it specific reference to a par
ticular thing. The function of a qualitative noun is not primarily to designate, but to
lay stress upon the qualities of that to which the noun refers. In the case of vbims
the qualities are those that distinguish law, but the particular law in mind is usually
the Mosaic law or the Old Testament in general, but this itself variously viewed as
indicated above. Cf. Professor Ernest D. Burton, "Redemption from the Curse of
the Law," American Journal of Theology, October, 1907, pp. 624-46.
35] 35

36 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
that God's non-legal righteousness is attested by the Law and the
Prophets. In a few instances vdpos refers to some other code or statute defined
in the context, or by metonymy to a force having an effect like that of a
law. For example, Rom. 7:22-23: "For I dehght in the law of God
after the inward man; but I see a different law in my members, warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under
the law of sin which is in my members." See also Rom. 7:2, 35-
8:2a, et al.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases.— Oi the 71 occurrences of vdpos
without the article in the Pauline Epistles 35 are in prepositional phrases.
From this fact it might be gathered that nouns in prepositional phrases
tend to be quahtative. More extensive data are needed, however, to
justify such an assumption. What is clear is that in Paul vdp.os in prepo
sitional phrases tends to be qualitative. In all the Pauhne Epistles
only 12 instances of vdpos with the article in prepositional phrases occur.
In the rest of the New Testament the proportion is reversed, there being
only 7 instances of anarthrous vdpos in prepositional phrases to 29 in
which the article is used. The data as regards the prepositional usage
of vdpos both with and without the article in the whole New Testament
are as follows:
With the article:
dirb tov vopov (Matt. 5:18; Acts 28:23; Pom. 7:2, 3, 6; 8:2).
81a tov vopov (Rom. 7:5).
ets tov vdp-ov (Acts 25:8).
iK rov vopov (John 12:34; Rom. 2:18; 4:16).
iv r<S vopio (Matt. 12:5; 22:36; Luke 2:24; 10:26; 24:44; John
1:46; 8:5,17; 10:34; 15:25; Rom. 2:20; 7:23; ICor. 9:9; 14:21).
Kara tov vopov (Acts 6 : 13 ; 21:28; Heb. 7:5).
Kara, tov vopov (Luke 2:22, 39; John 18:31; 19:7; Acts 23:3;
24:14; Heb. 9:19, 22).
pera. t6v vopov (Heb. 7:28).
7rapa rov vopov (Acts 18: 13).
virb rov vopov (Rom. 3:21; Jas. 2:9).
Without the article:
axpi vdfiov (Rom. 5 : 13).
Sta vdpov (Rom. 2:12; 3:20, 27; 4:13; 7:7; Gal. 2:19, 21; Jas.
2:12). ets vdpov (Rom. 9:31; Jas. 1:25).
iK vopov (Rom. 4:14; 10:5; Gal. 3:18, 21 [margin]; Phil. 3:9).
36

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 37
iw6pV (Luke 2:23; Acts 13:39; Rom. 2:12, 23; Gal. 3:11, 21;
5:4; Phil. 3:6).
kuto vdpov (Phil. 3:5; Heb. 7:16; 8:4; 10:8).
irepl vopov (Acts 18:15).
vjr6 vdpov (Rom. 6:14, 15; ICor. 9:20 (quater); Gal. 3:23; 4:4,5,21;
5:18). \iopU vopov (Rom. 3:21; 7:8, 9).
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — Of the 71
anarthrous instances 61 are quahtative, the omission of the article having
the effect, not of assigning the law referred to to ai class of laws, as if it
were one of many, but of emphasizing its quahty as law. In many
instances where the noun is limited by a qualifying genitive, itself
anarthrous, it is the quahty expressed by the whole compound expression,
or especially that which is conveyed by the genitive which is emphasized.1
Numerous examples of the quahtative usage of vdpos might be pre
sented and discussed. For example, Rom. 2 : 230: 8s ev vdpa> KavxSo-ai,
81a tiJs irapa/Sao-etos tov vopov tov Oebv dripa£ets; Here in the prepositional
phrase vdpos is quahtative. The Jew is represented as glorying in a
religion whose distinguishing feature was its legahsm. This legalistic
character was as a matter of fact expressed in the Jewish code, but it is
not here the code itself which the apostle has specially in mind but the
legahstic nature of the Jewish religion. In the second hah of the sen
tence, on the other hand, he refers to the code as such. When in the
first clause the apostle says " thou who gloriest in law, " it is obvious that
if pressed to explain what law he had in mind he would have said " the
Jewish law," but it is equally obvious that though making covert or
unconscious reference to that law his primary emphasis is upon its
essential characteristic as a legahstic system. The omission of the
article in Enghsh in the first clause allows the intention of the Greek
to make itself felt: "thou who gloriest in law, dost thou through thy
transgression of the law dishonour God?"
Rom. 2:25 is another example: irepiropy pev yap axpeXe'i idv vopov
ir poo-ays- iav 8e -irapa^drys vopov ijs, y irepiropy aov aKpo/Bvaria yeyovev.
To bring out the qualitative force of vdpos here one might read "if thou
be a law-keeper .... if thou be a law-transgressor," or "if thou be a
keeper of law .... a transgressor of law." The insertion of the
1 A qualitative noun may be modified by a noun which is itself qualitative, as, e.g.,
in Rom. 1:1, eiayyi\iov 6eov; 1:4, uioB Seov; irvev/M ayiaaivris; 2:29, irepiTop.ii
KapSlas; 7:25, vipufi Oeov .... v6/jup atiaprlas. In such collocations both words are
qualitative, the stronger qualitative emphasis naturally lying upon the second term,
the qualitative' qualifier.

38 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
definite article in translation as in the Revised Version completely obliter
ates the quahtative usage and alters the sense of the passage.
Similarly in the oft-recurring phrase H epymv vopov, while Paul no
doubt has in mind the Old Testament Jewish law as the concrete thing by
legahstic obedience to which men were expecting to be justified, yet it is
its quahty as a legahstic system upon which he throws emphasis, and the
proper translation would be "by works of law." So also in Rom. 7 : 25
we should read not "the law of God .... the law of sin," but "a law
of God .... a law of sin."
In all these instances the quahtative usage of vdpos is clear and in
some cases striking, particularly in passages where the quahtative and the
definite usages stand side by side, as in Rom 2 : 14, 23 (already discussed) ;
3:21; Gal. 3:18-19; 4:21. Taking the last mentioned as a further
illustration it is evident that the apostle's meaning is " tell me, ye that
desire a legahstic type of religion, are ye not acquainted with the Jewish
law?" or, more briefly, "ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear
the law?" Doubtless the "law" the legahstic Galatians wished to be
"under" was actually the Mosaic law, but it is not that as such which
Paul has in mind in the phrase "under law." That condition would
be equally abhorrent to his mind whether it were the Mosaic or some
other legalistic code. " Under law " meant actually in his own experience
and doubtless in the Galatian tendency which he denounces specifically
the Jewish law. Nevertheless it is not that or any other specific system
which is designated by the phrase "under law" but the essential char
acter of such systems, their law quahty. Had the revisers rendered this
passage with the insight that marked their translation of Rom. 6: 14-15,
where, amending the Authorized Version, they correctly read "for ye
are not under law but under grace. What then ? shall we sin because
we are not under law but under grace?" the apostle's meaning would
have been more adequately expressed.
Insistence upon the recognition of the quahtative force of vdpos in
Paul is more than a mere grammatical punctilio; it is a necessary ele
ment in correct interpretation. Its recognition enlarges the apostle's
religious philosophy from an anti-codal polemic to a wide-sweeping
assertion of spiritual freedom. He insisted on absolute spiritual hberty,
and his breach with legal morahty was complete. To limit his reference
to the Mosaic code alone is in many instances to reduce the force of his
statement and to narrow his thought. Other excellent specimens of the
qualitative use of vdpos are found in the following passages: Luke 2: 23;
Rom. 2:23; Gal. 2:21; 3:2; 5:4; Phil. 3:6; Heb. 10:8.
38

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 39
4. The Revised Version renderings of vdpos. — In the translation of
this word the revisers have generally ignored the distinction between the
definite 6 vdpos and the quahtative vdpos in so far as the latter is con
cerned.1 When the context makes it reasonably clear that it is the
Mosaic law that Paul has especially in mind they 'have taken this as
warrant for translating vdpos "the law," obscuring the fact that his
emphasis is upon its law quality.
The insertion in some instances of alternative readings bears witness
to the revisers' uncertainty and increases the difficulty of interpretation
on the basis of the Enghsh text. In the following conspectus the
Revised Version renderings of anarthrous vdpos in the Pauhne literature
are divided into two groups, viz., those passages in which a text reading
and a marginal reading are given, and those passages in which a text
reading; only is given. These are then subdivided into their various
possibilities. Carried out to its fullest extent the conspectus would
present a series of 27, based upon the possible choices between the text
and marginal readings of "law," "a law," and "the law." To present
this series in full is unnecessary, inasmuch as only a few of these possi
bilities are actually adopted by the revisers. The arrangement of the facts
presented is, however, such that in every passage in the Pauhne Epistles
where vdpos appears without the article the single correct rendering is
indicated, together with the Revised Version's divergences therefrom
where such occur. By this means it is hoped the conspectus may be of
value to the New Testament interpreter in the field which it covers.
1. Anarthrous vdpos is rendered by "the law" in the text and "law"
in the margin: (a) When the marginal reading should have stood in the
text(Rom. 3:2o[6m], 28, 31 [6m]; 4:13; 5:20; 7:10,76,8,9). (6) When
the rendering should have been "a law": no instance, (c) Correctly:
no instance. 2. Anarthrous vdpos is rendered by a single text reading as follows:
(a) By "law": (i) When the rendering should have been "a law";
in no instance, (ii) When the rendering should have been "the law";
in no instance, (iii) Correctly (Rom. 3:270; 6:14, 15; 7:20; I Tim.
1:9). (6) By "a law": (i) When the rendering should have been " the
law"; in no instance, (ii) When the rendering should have been
"law" (Rom. 9:31a). (hi) Correctly2 (Rom. 3:276; 4:15; 5:13;
1 For cases of inaccurate translation see Rom. 2:17, 25; 3:20, 210, 31; 4:13, 14;
5:13,20; 7:1,76,8; 10:4,5; 13 = 8; ICor. 9:20; Gal. 2:16 (iii), 19, 21; 3:2,10,11,
18, 21c, 23; 4:4,5,21a; 5-4, 18; 6:13; Phil. 3:5, 6, 9.
1 In Rom. 4: 15; 5: 13; Gal. 5: 23, "no law" is regarded as equivalent to "not a"
or "not any law." 39

40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
7:23a; Gal. 5:23). (c) By "the law": (i) When the rendering should
have been "a law"; in no instance, (ii) When the rendering should
have been "law" (Rom. 2:12 [6m], 13 [6m], 14 [ter], 17, 23, 25 [Ms];
3:210; 4:14; 5:13; 7:25 [6m]; 9:316;" 10:4,5; 13:8,10; ICor. 9:20
[quater]; Gal. 2:16 [ter], 19 [Ms], 21; 3:2, 5, 10, 11, 18, 21 [Ms], 23; 4:4,
5, 21; 5:4, 18; 6:13; Phil. 3:5, 6). (iii) Correctly; in no instance.
While the larger number of the foregoing possibihties are merely
theoretical and actual instances of such translations do not occur, it is
important to exhibit them; and that their failure to appear is not due
to any intrinsic improbability or to the watchfulness of the revisers is
indicated by the large number of instances, viz., 48, in which vdpos is
translated "the law" when a correct rendering would have required
"law." In the 11 instances where the revisers were in doubt or disagreement
among themselves as to whether the rendering should be "the law"
or "law" they have in every instance placed the wrong rendering "the
law" in the text and the correct reading "law" in the margin.' In
one instance they have read "a law" where the rendering should have
been " law." In one instance the anarthrous and qualitative vdpos has
been incorrectly rendered "that law"; in 5 instances they have read
"a law" correctly, and in 5 they have read "law" correctly. Thus
out of 71 instances of anarthrous vdpos, 61 are palpable mistranslations,
though in 1 1 of these the correct rendering is given in the margin. That
the obviously qualitative Pauline usage of this word could so completely
fail of recognition in the revision of the New Testament is an evidence
of the need that New Testament interpreters, either on the basis of the
Greek or the Enghsh text, give attention to the qualitative usage of
nouns; it is moreover a sufficient apology for such an investigation as
the one here presented.3 "ApapTta
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — This word bulks
largely in the Pauline writings, though not, perhaps, excessively, con-
1 In Rom. 9:316 els v6/u>v o{ik i<j>Bao-ev is translated "did not arrive at that law."
2 It is to be noted that the 11 instances where an alternative reading is suggested
are in no way different from the 48 instances where the reading "the law" was chosen
without such marginal variation. The consistent rendering of anarthrous v&fws as a
definitive noun evidently proceeds upon the assumption that vdpoi refers definitely and
almost exclusively to the law of Moses. This assumption overlooks its qualitative
character and fails to account for the absence of the article.
3 In all instances where v6/ios with the article occurs in the' Pauline Epistles it is
correctly rendered "the law." 40

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 41
sidering their nature and extent. It occurs 61 times in the Pauhne
Epistles. About one-third of its occurrences in the New Testament
are in Paul, and two-thirds of those in Paul are in Romans.
'ApapTta occurs much more frequently with the article than without
it. With the article it is used commonly in the generic sense; so, for
example, in Rom. 5:12: "Therefore, as by one man sin [y dpapria]
entered into the world," etc.; also Rom. 6:13: "Neither present
your members unto sin [rrj dpapria.] as instruments of unrighteous
ness," etc. A few instances, however, of the restrictive usage occur;
so, e.g., I Cor. 15:3: "Christ died for our sins" (virep rS>v dpaprimv
yp&v); also vs. 17: "Ye are yet in your sins" (ev Tats dpaprlais vpSv);
see also Gal. 1:4.
'Apaprla occurs without the article in the Pauhne Epistles 20 times,
viz., Rom. 3:9, 20; 4:8; 5:13(6*5); 6:14,16; 7:7,8,13; 8:3(6*5), 10;
14:23; II Cor. 5:21; 11:7; Gal. 2:17; 3:22; ITim. 5:22; IITim.3:6.
In 4 of the foregoing instances of anarthrous dpapria the noun is used
indefinitely; so, e.g., II Cor. 11:7: "Or did I commit a sin [dpapTtav] in
abasing myself that ye may be exalted?" See also II Cor. 5:21;
I Tim. 5:22; II Tim. 3:6. The remaining 16 instances of anarthrous
dpapria are examples of quahtative usage and will be more fuhy dis
cussed under that head.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — Four instances of dpapria without
the article in prepositional phrases occur in the Pauhne Epistles. In
each instance the term is quahtative. The passages are as follows:
81a dpapTtav (Rom. 8:10); 7rept dpaprla<i (Rom. 8:36); virb dpapriav
(Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22). In all the above the indefinite sense is mani
festly excluded. Had the author desired he might conceivably have
inserted the article and have used the word in the generic sense. What
he in fact did was to use the noun in every case in such a way as to throw
emphasis upon the character and quahties of sin. In every case it is
not sin conceived of genericahy as including every form of evil action,
nor is it any particular evil act, but sin thought of with reference to its
evil characteristics that is prominent in the apostle's mind. This quah
tative shade is with difficulty reproduced in the Enghsh, vocal stress upon
the word "sin" being perhaps as near an approximation to the force
of the original as could be given by a more laborious circumlocution or
paraphrase. Eight instances of dpapria with the article in prepositional phrases are
found in the Pauline Epistles, as follows: dirb rys dpaprlas (Rom. 6 : 7, 18,
22); Sta Tiys dpapTtas (Rom. 5:12); ev Tats dpapTtais (I Cor. 15:17);
41

42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
virep Ttov dpapTiSv (I Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4); virb ryv dpaprlav (Rom. 7 : 14).
In 5 of the foregoing instances, viz., Rom. 5:12; 6:7, 18, 22; 7:14,
dpapria is used with the article in the generic sense, in the other 3 (I Cor.
15:3, 17; Gal. 1:4) it is used restrictively. In so far as the data fur
nished by the Pauline Epistles justify an inference the fact would seem
to be that the apostle makes a clear discrimination in prepositional
phrases, as elsewhere, between dpapria regarded as a generic term and
dpapria thought of as respects the quahties belonging to that which is
so named, indicating this discrimination by the omission and insertion
of the article. In other words, the prepositional phrase offers no excep
tion to the rule that nouns with the article are either restrictive or
generic, while anarthrous nouns are either indefinite or qualitative. It
may well be that prepositional phrases by their very nature are more
frequently quahtative than not, though a separate and exhaustive
investigation would be required to establish that conclusion; but the
fact here observed is that the lines of demarcation between both the
nouns with the article and the anarthrous noun and also ' between
the two uses of the anarthrous noun obtain in prepositional phrases
as well as in independent constructions.
3. Qualitative Usage other than in prepositional phrases. — There are
12 instances of the qualitative usage of dpapria aside from those occurring
in prepositional phrases which remain to be considered. They are
Rom. 3:20; 4:8; 5:13 (6*5); 6:14, 16; 7:7, 8, 13; 8:30; 14:23;
Gal. 2:17. Of these several outstanding examples are selected for more
detailed discussion. The qualitative character that is so prominent in
these is, however, discernible in every one of the twelve.
Rom. 7:7: 6 vdpos dpapria; Here Paul repudiates a conceived con
sequence of his reasoning by an argumentative question which states
at once the objector's assumption and his own protest thereagainst.
The apostle's query is not whether the Jewish law is of such a nature that
from some conceivable point of view it may be looked upon as classifiable
under the category of sins; it is whether of the law may be affirmed
those qualities which are characteristic of sin. This distinction is subtle,
for if a thing is a sin it is evident that it will possess characteristics
which sin possesses. Conversely, the possession of such characteristics
would appear to justify its relegation to the category of sins. Though
the quahtative and indefinite usages here approximate, they remain
distinct, the emphasis lying upon the possession of attributes, dpapria
describing by the ascription of quahties and not designating by assign
ment to a class. 42

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 43
Rom. 7 : 13 : dXXot y dpapria, iva <£avg dpapria, ktX. In this striking
passage the generic and quahtative usages appear in conjunction. The
quahtative emphasis of the anarthrous dpapria is comparable to dpapTwXds
in capitals, were such a method of indicating emphasis allowable in
Greek. The thought is repeated in the next clause by another con
struction, the two in this immediate collocation affording an impressive
example of the adjectival equivalence of quahtative usage. Rearranging
the second clause in the order of the first, for the purpose of comparison,
we have y dpapria, tva cpavy dpapria, ktX. y dpapria Tva yevrrrai Ka$'
iirepploXyv dpaprmXds, ktX. Paul's thought is that under the circumstances
which he narrates the essential qualities and characteristics of sin
emerge. Sin now appears as sin, whatever it may have seemed before;
that is to say, in the anarthrous dpapria the emphasis in the apostle's
thought is not upon sin thought of abstractly or in general, nor is it upon
any particular sin, but upon the inherently evil characteristics of sin,
the quahties that make sin sin.
Rom. 14:23 further ihustrates the quahtative usage of dpapTla:
irdv 8e o ovk iK irtorews dpapria io-rlv. The statement of the apostle is
not that whatsoever is not "of faith" is a sin, that is, may be reckoned as
one in the catalogue of sins; it is the affirmation that of whatsoever is
not "of faith" sin quahties are to be predicated.
Enghsh idiom commonly, though not always, makes the indefinite
and the quahtative uses of the word " sin " identical in form, differentiat
ing them by a difference of vocal stress. For example, in enumerating the
Montanist catalogue of mortal sins one might mention idolatry, fraud,
denial of the faith, blasphemy, adultery, and fornication. Upon being
reminded that there were seven, one might say, " Oh, yes, homicide is a
sin, too." In such sentences as " avarice is a sin," "theft is a sin," all that
is affirmed of these vices is that they are to be classed under the common
title "sin." But in sentences like the following such is not the case.
For example, "the neglect of civic duties is a sin"; "the military unpre-
paredness of the United States is a sin"; "the exploitation of the ignorant
is a sin." In these sentences the intention of the user is not to affirm
that the various acts and conditions in question are members of the
class sin; it is to say that of these acts and conditions quahties may be
predicated which may also be predicated of sin. Here, again, the dis
tinction between the indefinite and the quahtative usages appears to
vanish in fact but it is preserved in thought, the term "sin" being
descriptive rather than designative and drawing attention to attributes
rather than classifying by relegation to a category.
43

44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
4. The Revised Version renderings of dpapria. — In all the instances
where dpapria with the article is used generically the Revised Version,
in accordance with Enghsh idiom, translates without the article. In
the few examples of the restrictive which occur, which are in every case
in the plural and modified by a following possessive pronoun, English
idiom is such that the article naturally does not appear in the translation.
In the 4 cases where dpapria is used indefinitely the Revised Version
rendering is appropriate. In II Cor. 5:21 indefinite and quahtative
usages occur side by side: rbv py yvovra dpapriav virep i;po)V apapriav
iiroiyo-ev. The first dpapria is probably indefinite, the intention being
to affirm the sinlessness of Christ and this by the statement that he did
not know experientially any single sin. The second dpapria is clearly
quahtative. Obviously no single sin is meant. The argument is that
the Christ who was guiltless of any single sin was regarded and treated
by God as if possessing the qualities that sin possesses. This is fairly
rendered by "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf,"
where the words, "no sin" may be regarded as equivalent to "not a sin."
In the case of the first dpapria, however, it is difficult to determine
whether the intention is indefinite or qualitative. Cf. Eph. 2:12;
I Thess. 4:13.
In all cases where dpapria without the article is used qualitatively
the Revised Version renderings are such as not to obscure in the English
the design of the anarthrous usage in the Greek. In Rom. 8:3a the
phrase aap£ dpaprtas is rendered "sinful flesh," thus emphasizing the
quahtative force of the term. In Gal. 2:17 dpa Xptoros dpapTtas Siokovos;
is properly translated "Is Christ a minister of sin ? " and by a vocal inflec
tion the qualitative force of dpapria may be made evident in the English.
Here, too, is an example of a quahtative noun modified by another
qualitative noun, the whole phrase being quahtative, but the chief
quahtative contribution being made by the quahtative qualifier.
In general it may be said that the Revised Version renderings of
both y dpapria and dpapria are in all cases faithful to the Greek and are
such as to enable the interpreter of the English text to express by vocal
emphasis the quahtative character of the noun, although that qualitative
character must first be discovered by a study of the Greek.
LTto-Tis
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — As one of the most
frequent and important New Testament as well as Pauline terms, this
word is deserving of special attention. About three-fifths of all the
44

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 45
instances occurring in the New Testament are in the Pauline Epistles,
Romans and Galatians, in keeping with their doctrinal and argumenta
tive character, furnishing the largest numbers. U-torts occurs with
comparative infrequency in the restrictive sense (cf. I Tim. i : 19; 6: 10,
21; IITim. 3:8; Titus 1:13; ICor. 16:13; II Cor. 13:5), commonly in
the generic, occasionally in the qualitative, and probably never in the
indefinite sense. It occurs most frequently in Paul in prepositional
phrases, an exhibition of whose usage is appended. Its use in the quah
tative sense otherwise than in prepositional phrases is extremely rare.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — The following is a list of the
passages in the New Testament in which irt'o-Tts is used after a preposition:
With the article:
dirb T)}s irtorecDS (Acts 13:8; I Tim. 8:10).
8ta t»}s irtbrecos (Rom. 1 : 1 2 ; 3:30,31; Gal. 3:14, 26; Eph. 3:12, 17;
Col. 2:12; IThess. 3:7; Heb. 11:39).
ets ryv irianv (Gal. 3 : 23).
ev rrj iricrrei (I Cor. 16:13; H Cor. 13:5; TitUS 1:13; II Pet. -1:15).
iirl Ttj iriarei (Phil. 3:9).
Kara ttjv m'o-Ttv (Matt. 9:29).
irepl rys irlarems (Acts 24:34; I Tim. 1:19).
irept tt?v irt'o-Ttv (I Tim. 6: 21; II Tim. 3:8).
inrep ti}s iriarews (I TheSS. 3:2; II Thess. 1:4).
Without the article:
8ta irto-Tea>s (Rom. 3:22, 25; II Cor. 5:7; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8;
Phil.3:9; IITim.3:is; Heb. 1:12; 11:33; I Pet. 1:5).
ets mar iv (Rom. 1:17).
«k irtoreais (Rom. 1:17 [Ms]; 3:26, 30; 4:16 [Ms]; 5:1; 9:30, 32;
10:6; 14:23 [6m]; Gal. 2:16; 3:7,8,9,11,12,22,24; 5:5; ITim. 1:5;
Heb. 10:38; Jas. 2:24).
ev irto-Tei (Gal. 2:20; IIThess. 2:13; ITim. 1:2,4; 2:7,15; 3:13;
4:12; IITim. 1:13; Titus 3:15; Jas. 1:6).
KaTairto-Tiv (Titus 1:1; Heb. 11:7, 13).
pera mo-Tews (Eph. 6:23; I Tim. 1:14).
X<«pts iriarems (Heb. II : 6).
Upon the basis of these data the following observations may be
made: 1. The expression e/c moreus is almost exclusively a Pauline phrase.
In Heb. 10:38 it is taken from the Old Testament (Hab. 2:4), and in
Jas. 2 : 24 one can almost see the defiant quotation marks on it. One
might punctuate it ii epymv StKatovTat avOpmiros ko.1 ovk "eK iriarems"
45

46 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
povov. Cf. Rom. 3:28. In I Tim. 1:5 «... . m'o-rems is a non-
Pauline usage and has no technical sense.
2. Though Paul says « ir/brews so frequently he never says « t>)s
7TtO-T£0)S. 3. On the other hand Sta mo-Tew; and 8ta t»}s irt'o-Tews occur with about
equal frequency. In the 10 cases where Sta t^s mtrrews occurs 6 are
clearly restrictive, 2 are possibly so, that is, the article may be equivalent
to a possessive pronoun. This, while not decisive, may offer presump
tive evidence that in the 2 cases in Rom 3 : 30 the article is restrictive and
in that case directs the thought to the previous qualitative instances, the
expression then meaning "the faith" (i.e., the faith we are discussing).
If this is so the usage of marts in prepositional phrases shows no devia
tion from the regular usage of nouns in other constructions.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — In the
Pauline Epistles, as has been remarked, anarthrous marems in other than
prepositional constructions is of relatively infrequent occurrence. It is,
however, so used in the following 20 instances: Rom. 1:5; 3:27, 28;
4:13; 12:3; 14:22; 16:26; ICor. 12:9; 13:13; Gal. 3:2, 5; 5:6, 22;
Eph. 4:5; IThess. 5:8; II Thess. 1:11; 2:13; ITim. 6:11; IITim.
2:22; Titus 2:10. In none of the above can the usage be shown to be
indefinite. In every case the usage is quahtative.
As outstanding examples of the quahtative usage of irions may be
quoted (Rom. 3:27): Sta irotov vopov; riov epymv; oi>xi> dXXa Sta vopov
irlarems. Here is an instance of the qualitative noun as the modifier of
another qualitative noun. It is the quality of moris in the vdpos irtaretos
which in the apostle's mind makes boasting impossible. The theory of
justification through meritorious action permits or encourages self-
gratulation; the law of faith (i.e., the law which calls for faith), upon
which he insists, excludes it. And it is because of its faith quality that
the principle for which he contends produces this result. LTi'o-tis is
therefore strongly quahtative.
A similar quahtative emphasis is seen in the use of irions in Rom.
4 : 13 : Ov yap Sta vopov fj eirayyeXta tco 'A/}paap .... dXXa Sta 8iKatoo~wys
iriarems. Here vdpov is set in contrast with Sikoioo-vvi/s, not with the
SiKaioo-vvys which is the issue of the observance of legal requirements
but a SiKaioo-vvys which is the product of faith. This contrast of nomic
and pistic righteousness is accomphshed by the use of irions quahtatively.
The righteousness alluded to is a faith righteousness, and irions is so
used as to lay stress upon its qualities as faith in distinction from the
quahties possessed by law. 46

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 47
4: The Revised Version renderings of irians. — In their translation of
m'o-Tis used qualitatively the revisers have in general given opportunity
only for acquiescent criticism. In Rom. 4:166 they have inserted
the definite article where the quahtative force both of irions and the
rare instance of a proper noun used qualitatively might, perhaps, be
more clearly expressed by the rendering "by Abrahamic faith." The
renderings of irions in prepositional phrases in the Revised Version are,
with one possible exception (Titus 1:1), such as to bring out the quali
tative force. The insertion of the article by the revisers gives the term
in this passage a definiteness which the Greek does not justify.
AiKcuocrvVr;
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — Out of a total
of 58 occurrences in the Pauline Epistles 22 have the article and 36 are
anarthrous. Of the 36 anarthrous instances all but one (Phil. 3:9)
are quahtative, the usage in no case being clearly indefinite. In Phil.
3 : 9, though no article occurs, the sense is definite, the noun preceded by
a possessive personal pronoun being equivalent to t^v SiKatoo-vvip/ pov.
Of the 35 qualitative instances 15 are in prepositional phrases and
20 are in independent constructions. No instance of Stxaioo-vvij with
the article in a prepositional phrase occurs in the New Testament.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — The prepositional usage of the
whole New Testament is as follows: Sta Sikaioo-vvijs (Rom. 4:13; 5:21;
8:10; I Pet. 3:14); ds StKatoo-vvijv (Rom. 4:3, 5, 9, 22; 6:16; 10:4, 10;
Gal. 3:6; Jas. 2:23); ev SiKaioo-vvg (Luke 1:75; Acts 17:31; Eph.
4:24; 5:9; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. i:i; Rev. 19:11); KaTa StKatocrvvijv
(Phil. 3:6); irepl Sikoioo-vvijs (John 16:8, 10; Acts 24:25). In ah
these cases the qualitative force either of the term or of the phrase of
which the term is a part is obvious.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — Of the 20
instances of qualitative usage in constructions other than prepositional
phrases a few may be cited as typical:
Rom. 3:5: et Se y dSiKia ypmv Oeov SiKaioavvyv crvviarijaiv, ti epovpev;
"But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what
shall we say ? " Here the unrighteousness of man is set in contrast with
the divine righteousness. Were the sense not qualitative and the inten
tion merely contrast we should expect to find StKatoo-vvij, used restrictively.
The absence of the article with both SiKatocrvvj? and Oeov indicates that
both are used qualitatively. In the case of neither is there any indefinite-
ness as if there were a StKatoo-vvi; tov Oeov and a Swcatoo-vVi? t£v dvOpmmov or
47 *",

48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
tSv dyyeXwv. The sense of the combined words is divine "righteousness."
Similar examples occur in Rom. 1:17; 3:21,22; 4:6.
Rom. 6:13: dXXd irapacrrycraTe . . . . Tot peXy ipmv oirXa BiKaiocrvvys
t<5 Oem. "But present .... your members as instruments of righteous
ness unto God." Here SiKaioavvy is used as an anarthrous genitive
modifier. It is clearly quahtative, the intention being to cah the
reader's attention to the distinctively righteous character of the "weap
ons" yielded to God or to the righteous result produced by God's use of
them. Conceivably SiKatoo-vVi; might have had the article and have
been either generic or restrictive. Being anarthrous its reference is
clearly qualitative.
Rom. 9:30: Ti ovv ipovpev; oti eOvy to. py SimKovra SiKaioavvyv
KareXafiev Sucaioavvyv, Sucaioavvyv 8e ryv iK iriarems. "What shall we
say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness,
attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith."1
In the first of these instances the usage is clearly qualitative, the second
might be thought to be indefinite, the third restrictive. It is possible,
however, that all three are qualitative. The passages illustrate the
difficulty that sometimes attends the identification of quahtative usage.
II Cor. 5:21: tov py yvovra dpapriav virep ypmv dpapriav iiroiyaev,
iva ypeis yevmpeOa Sucaiocrvvy Oeov iv avrm. "Him who knew no sin he
made to be sin on our behalf: that we might become the righteousness
of God in him." God's imputation of sin to Christ allows the imputa
tion of divine righteousness to us. Both sin (5:216) and righteousness
are used qualitatively. Cf . note on dpapria.
II Cor. 11:15: oi peya ovv ei Kat ot StaKovot avrov peraaxyparilovTai
dis StaKovot SiKaioo-vviys. "It is no great thing, therefore, if his ministers
also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness." The qualitative
sense of SiKaioo-vvjj is very clear; the StaKovot SaTavS are naturally
thought of as SiaKovoi dSiKtas but are apparently transformed into beings
whose labors are directed toward the production of righteousness.
4. The Revised Version renderings of SiKaioavvy. — In the translation
of this word when used qualitatively in prepositional phrases the Revised
Version wrongly inserts the article in Rom 4:13; II Pet. 1:1. In
independent constructions (Rom. 1:17) it inserts the indefinite article
as if God's righteousness were conceived of by the apostle as of several
sorts. Similarly in Rom. 3 : 5 the insertion of the definite article empha
sizes the class to which the righteousness belongs, which in the Greek is
1 Note the qualitative use of the gentilic noun c$vri and its mistranslation in the
English. How much more forceful had the article been omitted in the translation!

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 49
expressed by the precedence of Oeov, but weakens the imphcation of
quality which the omission of the article with StKaioo-vVi; indicates. In
Rom. 3:21 it exhibits a striking negligence, ignoring again the quahta
tive character of the term and making it indefinite; in 4:3, 5, 6, 9,
however, the quahtative character is adequately rendered; in II Cor.
5:21 it inserts the definite article, thus modifying the quahtative force
appreciably; in Rom. 4:22, 5:21, and 8:10, on the other hand, the
qualitative effect is preserved. In Rom. 9 : 30 a notable example of the
collocation of the definite and qualitative usages occurs and the Revised
Version renders both appropriately. Other instances of the correct
rendering of SiKaioo-vvi/ used quahtatively could be adduced. In its
translation the revisers have not been uniform in their renderings,
affording opportunity for criticism in some cases but oftener adhering
to the spirit of the Greek. In many of these, it must be admitted, no
special discernment was required, and a hteral translation of the Greek
was both the most obvious rendering and at the same time sufficient
expression of the qualitative effect in English.
'EXiris
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — 'EXirt's occurs
36 times in Paul, 15 times with the article and 21 times without it.
When used with the article it is in the fohowing 6 cases generic:
Rom. 5:5; 8 : 240; 12:12; 15:4,13 (6*5) . In the following 9 cases it is
restrictive: II Cor. 1:6; Eph. 1:18; Phil. 1:20; Col. 1:5, 23, 27;
I Thess. 1:3; I Tim. 1:1; Titus 2:13. As an example of the generic
usage may be cited Rom. 5:5: " And hope [y eXiris] maketh not ashamed."
As an example of the restrictive usage may be cited Col. 1:5: "because
of the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens."
When used without the article eXiris is in the following 3 cases probably
indefinite: Rom. 8: 246; II Cor. 3:12 (see, however, Matt. 8: 10, Too-avV^v
irt'o-Tiv) ; Eph. 4:4. In the following 18 cases it is quahtative : Rom. 4:18
(6m); 5:2,4; 8 :20,24c; I Cor. 9: io(6m); 13:13; IICor.io:is; Gal. 5:5;
Eph. 2:12 (cf. II Cor. 5:21, where dpapria was reckoned indefinite);
IThess. 2: 19; 4: 13; 5:8; II Thess. 2: 16; Titus 1:2; 3:7. As an example
of the indefinite usage may be cited Eph. 4:4: "There is one body
and one spirit, even as ye also were called in one hope of your calling."
Examples of the qualitative usage will be discussed under that head.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. —'EXiris occurs 13 times in preposi
tional phrases in the Pauline writings, in 4 cases with the article and in
9 cases without it. 49

50 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
When used with the article it is in one case generic, viz., Rom. 15 : 13 :
"That ye may abound in hope" (ev rrj iXmSi). In the fohowing three
cases it is restrictive: Phil. 1:20; Col. 1:4, 23. As an example of the
restrictive usage may be cited Col. 1 : 23 : " and not moved away from the
hope [dirb t^s eXirtSos] of the gospel which ye heard." In one instance
anarthrous eXirt's in a prepositional phrase is used indefinitely, viz.,
Eph. 4:4: "There is one body and one spirit, even as ye were called in
one hope [ev pia eXiri'St] of your calling."
In the following 8 instances eXirt's without the article is used quahta
tively: Rom. 4:18 (6m); 5:2; 8:20; I Cor. 9 : 10 (6m) ; Titus 1:2; 3:7.
The following conspectus exhibits the complete prepositional usage
of eXirts in the Pauline Epistles:
With the article: <
dirb rys eXirtSos (Col. 1:23).
Sta Tijv eXirt'Sa (Col. 1:5).
ev rrj iXmSi (Rom. 15:13).
Kara .... tijv eXiri'Sa (Phil. 1:20).
Without the article:
ev pia eXiriSi (Eph. 4:4).
eir' e'Xiri'St (Rom. 4:18; 5:2; 8:20; I Cor. 9: 10 [Ms]; Titus 1:2).
kot' eXiri'Sa (TitUS3 = 7).
irap' eXiri'Sa (Rom. 4:18).
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — 'EXiris,
when anarthrous, is qualitative in 18 out of 21 instances. This is not to
deny, as has been previously remarked, that the term, while thus quahta
tive, may have a definite reference. In I Thess. 4:13, for example, KaOms
Kal ot Xoiirot 01 py exovres eXirt'Sa doubtless refers especially to the Christian
hope of a future life, while the usage is such as to throw stress upon the
characteristics of that hope rather than upon its identity. In Rom. 8 : 24
a concurrence of the generic, the indefinite, and the qualitative uses of
eXirt's is found: rrj yap eXiri'81 icrmOypev eXirts Se /3Xeiropevy ovk «fanv eXirt's.
Here the first eXiris is generic, the second indefinite, and the third quahta
tive. The writer's thought is that a hope once realized ceases to have
the character of hope but takes on that of experience. While this is
perhaps the most striking instance of the qualitative usage of eXirt's,
the same qualitative intent is discernible in all the instances cited.
4. The Revised Version renderings of eXiris. — The translation of
eXiris used qualitatively is almost without exception such as to offer
no occasion for demurring criticism. In Gal. 5 : 5 and I Thess. 5 : 8 the
insertion of the article tends to obscure the qualitative character of the
50

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 51
Greek expression. At the same time it is difficult, if not impossible, to
preserve in Enghsh both the definite and the qualitative tinges which are
present in the phrases eXn-ts SiKatoo-vvi/s and eXirts o-mrypias. If in the
translation the one is lost the other at least is preserved. The simple
omission of the article in these passages would have made passable
Enghsh and would have allowed the qualitative emphasis to be felt in
the translation. Notable examples of fehcitous rendering of the quahta
tive usage may be observed in Rom. 8: 24 and II Thess. 2 : 16.
EvayyeXtov
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — It is sometimes
remarked that this term is a favorite with Paul. Of its 75 occurrences
in the New Testament 59 are in the Pauhne Epistles. It is in ah but
3 cases preceded by the article, and when so' preceded is always restric
tive. Of the 3 examples of anarthrous usage (Rom. 1:1; II Cor. 11:4;
Gal. 1 : 6) all are qualitative.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — A complete exhibit of the usage
of evayyeXiov in the whole New Testament is as follows:
With the article:
81a to evayyeXtov (I Cor. 9:23).
8ta rov evayyeXtov (I Cor. 4:15; Eph. 3:16; II Thess. 2:14; II Tim.
1:10). eis to evayyeXiov (II Cor. 2:12; 9:13; Phil. 1:5; 2:22).
« tov evayyeXiov (I Cor. 9: 14).
e*vT<5 evayyeXtio (Mark 1:15; Rom. 1:9; I Cor. 9:18; II Cor. 8:18;
10:14; Phil. 4:3; IThess. 3:2).
IveKev .... tov evayyeXiov (Mark 8:35; 10:29).
Kara . ... to evayyeXiov (Rom. 11:28; 16:25; I Tim. 1:11;
IITim. 2:8).
Without the article:
ets evayyeXiov (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:6).
In Rom. I : I in the phrase dcprnpiapevos els evayyeXtov Oeov there is a
notable example of quahtative usage. There is, naturally, no indefinite-
ness, as if the apostle thought of God as the author of several gospels.
Nor is there here any implicit contrast, as if there were, e.g., an evayyeXiov
Oeov and an evayyeXiov Sia/3dXov or Sarava. It is not "a gospel of divine
origin" that Paul has in mind, since he recognizes no other sort. Nor
is it "the gospel of God," as if. the article were prefixed according to his
usual formula, though the definiteness of the reference is undeniable,
nor "God's gospel," as evayyeXtov Oeov might hterahy be rendered. Paul
51

52 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
declares himself set apart to "good news" simply, with 0eov added as a
qualifying nominal adjective. He is, then, "separated unto divine
good news." The distinction between evayyeXiov here and the prevail
ing to evayye'Xiov elsewhere is quite as clear as that between " ministry "
and "the ministry" or "service" and "the service." Obviously one
might be spoken of as ordained to "ministry" who remained a layman,
or as faithful in "service" who had no connection with any department
of the state.
In Gal. 1:6 the term occurs in the prepositional phrase eis erepov
evayyeXiov. That evayyeXiov is not thought of indefinitely is shown by
the immediately following words, 3 ovk eanv aXXo. To Paul there is
only one "gospel," though that gospel may be perverted and presented
in a debased form. The term cannot be indefinite because there is no
class "gospels" in Paul's mind of which it can be a member. It is
therefore qualitative.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — In one
passage anarthrous evayyeXtov occurs in an independent construction,
viz., II Cor. 11:4. Here by the same argument adduced in the case of
Gal. 1 : 6 it is shown to be qualitative. The fact that the apostle sets up
no class "gospels" of which the evayyeXtov eTepov can be a member
shows that he uses the word qualitatively.
4. The Revised Version renderings of evayyeXiov. — The Revised
Version rendering of qualitative evayye'Xiov in Rom. 1:1, "separated unto
the gospel of God," ignores the qualitative force of evayye'Xiov and renders
it as if it were the customary rb evayyeXiov. In II Cor. 11:4 and Gal.
1 : 6 the rendering " a different gospel," though it may imply an indefinite-
ness which was not present to Paul's mind, is perhaps as close an approach
to the qualitative force of the Greek as is possible in English.
®eXypa
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — This term occurs
24 times in the Pauline Epistles, being in 13 instances restrictive and
in 11 instances qualitative. There are some evidences that this word
was employed without the article as a cult term for that which was
conceived of as divinely preordained or less strictly for the divine desire.
The passages in which such a meaning is apparent are Matt. 18:14;
ICor. 16:12. Others less convincing are I Thess. 4 : 3 ; 5:18; IPet.4:2.
Apparently the early Christians could speak of what they regarded as
divinely willed not only as "the will of God" (Rom. 12:2) or "God's
will" (IThess. 5: 18) or "the will" (Rom. 2:18), but even more simply,
52

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 53
as "will" (I Cor. 16: 12), and predicate that this or that was not OeXypa,
meaning thereby that it was not divinely purposed (and therefore did
not come to pass). Parallels are to be found in Enghsh in the usage of
such words as "destiny," "providence," "kismet," "fate," "taboo," in
anarthrous construction.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — The prepositional usage of OeXypa
in the whole New Testament is as follows:
With the article:
ev t<S OeXypari tov Oeov (Rom. 1 : 10).
Kara to OeXypa tov Oeov (Gal. 1:4; I Pet. 4:19).
Without the article:
Sid OeXyparos Oeov (Rom. 15:32; I Cor. 1:1; II Cor. 1:1; 8:5;
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; IITim. 1:1).
ev QtXrj pari tov Oeov (Col. 4:12).
""- The foregoing data show that the use of Std with OeXypa is in the
New Testament hmited to Paul, that in this construction he always omits
the article, though he employs it with iv in Rom. 1 : 10 and with Kara in
Gal. 1:4. In all the instances of OeXypa with Sid the noun is quahtative,
as it is also with ev in Col. 4: 12.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — Aside from
prepositional constructions 3 instances of anarthrous OeXypa occur.
Each may be quoted and discussed:
I Cor. 16:12: LTepi 8e "AiroXXi) tov dSeXi^ov, iroXXot irapeKaXecra avTov
tva eXOy irpbs ipas pera rcov dSeXcpmv Kat irdvrtos ovk yv OeXypa iva vvv eXOy,
eXevaerai Se oVav evKaipycry. "But as touching Apollos the brother, I
besought him much to come unto you with the brethren: and it was
not at all God's will that he should come now [margin] ; but he will
come when he shall have opportunity." This is a striking instance
of the peculiar usage of OeXypa above referred to (a parahel occurs in
Matt. 18:14). Apollos delays his journey, awaiting the time when the
divine will shah be propitious. For him to depart to Corinth at the
time of Paul's writing has in some way been determined to be not OeXypa,
that is, divinely willed.
I Thess. 4:3: Tovto ydp icrnv OeXypa tov Oeov .... direxeaOai ipas
dirb rys iropveias. "This is the will of God .... that ye abstain from
fornication." Also I Thess. 5:18: tovto ydp OeXypa Oeov iv Xpiarm 'lyaov els ipas.
"For this is the will of God in Christ Jesus to youward."
As in the first instance a given event was recognized not to be at a
given time divinely wihed, in the latter two a given course of action is
53

54 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
declared OeXypa, i.e., a thing which God wills. In the first the connota
tion of the term is evidently such that when used alone it carries a
significance equivalent to that which it bears when used, as in the other
two instances, with a qualifying rov Oeov. In ah three the quahtative
sense is pronounced.
4. The Revised Version renderings of OeXypa. — In I Cor. 16:12 the
Revised Version refers the term to Apollos and translates: "It was not
at all his will," with "God's will" as an alternative reading in the
margin. Here the marginal paraphrase is obviously the truer rendering,
approximating the sense of the Greek, while not precisely representing
its usage. In I Thess. 4 : 3 and 5:18 the revisers have inserted the definite article,
translating " the will of God," a rendering which, while correctly repre
senting the definite reference of the phrase, makes the qualitative sense
of "will" discoverable only by a consultation of the Greek.
"Ayios
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — As a designation
for Christians this term occurs 40 times in the Pauhne writings, com
monly in the plural, there being only 1 instance of its use in the
singular (Phil. 4:21). In the 27 occurrences in independent construc
tions it is used 22 times with and 5 times (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; Eph.
3:8; 5:3; I Tim. 5 : 10) without the article. In the 13 occurrences of the
word in prepositional phrases only once (Rom. 8: 27) is it anarthrous.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — A full exhibit of the prepositional
usage of this term used as an appellative is as follows:
With the article:
eis tovs dyi'ovs (I Cor. 16:1; II Cor. 8:4; 9:1; Eph. 1:15; Col. 1:4;
Philem. 5).
ev tois dyt'ois (Eph. 1 : 18; II Thess. 1 : 10).
eiri Ttiiv dyimv (I Cor. 6:1).
pera t5v dyimv (I Thess. 3: 13).
irept t<1v dyt'tov (Eph. 6:18).
avv tois dyi'ots (Eph. 3:18).
Without the article:
virep dytW (Rom. 8:27).
Inasmuch as the only instance of anarthrous dyios in a prepositional
phrase is in Rom. 8:27, where the reference may be to things holy (cf.
Matt. 7:6) rather than to Christians as such, the evidence for the
quahtative usage of the term in prepositional phrases is indecisive.
54

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 55
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — The 5
instances of anarthrous dyios cited above are sufficient to show that while
not common the usage of the term in a qualitative sense is definitely
present in the Pauline Epistles. In 2 cases (Eph. 3 : 8 and I Tim. 5 : 10)
the usage is indefinite, in the other 3 clearly quahtative. The 3 may be
quoted and discussed: Rom. 1:7: irao-iv tois ovcriv e'v 'Pulpy dyamjTots Oeov,
kXijtois dyi'ots. ICor. 1:1-2 is similar: TJavXos .... rrj iKKXyaia ....
ev T&optvOw, yyiaapevois ev Xpiarm 'lyaov, kXtjtois dyt'ois. Eph. 5:3: pyhe
dvopa£ea6m iv vpiv, KaOms irpeirei dyt'ots. In all 3 of these instances the
omission of the article signifies the author's intention to emphasize the
quality of saintliness, regarded as the peculiar property of Christians.
They are, as we should say by italicization, saints. Hohness is regarded
as the Christian's distinguishing mark, and to be holy is his appointed
task. It is to the specific character of life to which they have been
called that the apostle in the first 2 instances directs attention by the
omission of the article. In Eph. 5:3 the term is likewise strictly quali
tative. To saints sinful behavior is incongruous, that is, it is incom
patible with the distinguishing Christian quahty of sainthness.
4. The Revised Version renderings of dyios. — In I Tim. 5 : 10 the
insertion of the article before the indefinite dyiW is unwarranted.
In Rom. 8:27, Kara Oeov ivrvyxavei iirep dyimv, where, even with the
customary understanding of the term, the usage of dyiois is clearly
quahtative, the insertion of the definite article in the Revised Version
fails in faithfulness to the Greek.
In the other instances in which dyiois is clearly quahtative, the
Revised Version translates by an anarthrous Enghsh equivalent and
the qualitative effect is preserved. 'A8e\<pds
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — In the Pauhne
Epistles d8eX<£ds often occurs in the vocative plural in affectionate or
expostulatory address.1 In 2 instances the singular is so used (Philem.
7, 20). Very frequently the plural with the article is so used as a desig
nation for the Christians of a given place. In Rom. 9:3 it is used to
denote the Jewish nation. It is sometimes used indefinitely, as in I Cor.
7:12. In Rom. 14:10, 13, 15, 21 there are examples of d8eX<pds used
generically. In I Cor. 9 : 5 it is used in its hteral sense. A few instances
of the quahtative usage occur.
1 Such instances have been reckoned as qualitative.
55

56 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — The following is an exhibit of
the usage of dSeXcpos in prepositional phrases in the Pauline Epistles:
With the article:
dvd peaov rov dSeXcpov (I Cor. 6:5).
ets tovs dSeX<povs (I Cor. 8:12; I Thess. 4:10).
ev t<3 d8eX<pco (I Cor. 7: 14).
perd rmv dSeXcpmv (I Cor. 16: II, 1 2).
o-vv 'Ovijcrtpto .... dSeXcpm (Col. 4 : 9) .
virep Ttiv d8eX<£«ov (Rom. 9:3).
Without the article:
dir6 iravTos d8eX«£ov (II TheSS. 3:6).
ev iroXXots d8eX<poTs (Rom. 8:29).
In 8 cases d8eX<pds occurs with the article in prepositional phrases.
In 6 of these it is used restrictively; in I Cor. 6:5 and 7: 14 it is used
genericahy. Anarthrous dSeXcpos occurs twice in prepositional phrases,
being used once indefinitely and once in what is possibly a quahtative
sense, viz., Rom. 8:29: oti ovs irpoeyvm, Kal irpompiaev crvpp6p<j>ovs rys
e'lKovos tov viov avTov, ets to etvat avrov irpmroTOKW ev iroXXots d8eX<pois.
"For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to
the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many
brethren." Here is an example of the indefinite and qualitative occa
sionally so shading into each other that it is difficult to say which usage
was in the writer's mind.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — 'ASeXcpos
occurs occasionally in a distinctly quahtative sense. The following
passage are examples:
I Cor. 5:11: vvv Se lypaxj/a vpiv .... edv tis dSeXt^os 6vopat,6pevos
rj iropvos . . . . rm toiovtoi pijSe o-vveo-flieiv. " Now I write [margin] unto
you, .... if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, ....
with such a one no, not to eat."
ICor. 6:6: dXXd dSeXcpos perd dSeXajiov Kpiverai. " But brother goeth
to law with brother."
I Cor. 6:8 is an especially noteworthy example of quahtative usage:
dXXd vpeis dStKeiTe Kat diroorepetTe, Kat tovto dSeX<^>ovs. "Nay, but ye
yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren."
I Tim. 5:1: dXXd irapaKaXet . . . . veaiTepovs As dSeXcpovs. "But
exhort .... the younger men as brethren."
4. The Revised Version renderings of doeX<p6s. — In 3 of the foregoing
instances of quahtative usage (viz., Rom. 8:29; I Cor. 6:6; I Tim. 5:1)
the renderings of the Revised Version faithfully reflect the Greek. In
56

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 57
2 passages (I Cor. 5:11; 6:8) the translation is such as to obscure the
quahtative force of the original. By the insertion of "a" before
"brother" in I Cor. 5:11 the qualitative intention is impaired and the
force of the sentence weakened. The person present to the apostle's
mind is thought of not merely as "a brother," that is, a fellow-member
of the Christian society, but as one who bears the Christian appellative
"brother." The difference is one of emphasis. The offender is in
either case within the Christian circle, but the apostle chooses to refer
to him as one who bears the title "brother."
Similarly in I Cor. 6:8 the insertion of the pronoun "your" before
"brethren" detracts from the force of the apostle's indignant protest.
To his mind the incongruity of dishonesty on the part of the Corinthian
Christians is aggravated by the fact that the dishonesty is practiced
against members of the Christian brotherhood. The insertion, of the
pronoun contributes to smoothness but weakens the quahtative force.
K.Xijtos
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — This term occurs
11 times in the New Testament, 7 of the instances being in Paul. It
is used both with and without the article. In Matt. 20:16 and 22:14,
where it is used in a play on words with eKXeXTos, its meaning is quite
different from that which it has elsewhere in the New Testament. Ordi
narily the KXyrol are the Christians, thought of simply as the fortunate
objects of the divine invitation to become partakers of salvation, or
with respect to some moral implication of their calling, or, in the case of
Paul himself, with regard to his divine appointment to apostleship.
Though the word may in every instance be regarded as an adjective, and
is apparently so regarded by Thayer et al., it seems possible that in some
passages at least it is an adjective used as a noun and with a qualitative
color. In Jude 1 and Rev. 17:14, indeed, the article appears and the
nominal force is evident. The present writer ventures the hypothesis
that kXi/to's was a cult term in use among the Christians and designated
one as a member of the cult, quite as dyios and dSeX^ds did. It may
have been imported from the terminology of the Greek mysteries.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — No instances of prepositional
usage occur.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — The follow
ing is the only clear example of the qualitative usage of kXijtos : Rom 1:6:
eore Kai vpeis KXyrol 'lyaov Xpiarov. Here, while the apostle directs
his readers' attention to the fact that they belong to a class, his intention
57

58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
is evidently not to lay stress on membership in the class but upon the
nature of the relationship thereby estabhshed. Still less do they consti
tute the class; they are not, then, thought of as "the called of Jesus
Christ " but rather "called men of Jesus Christ" or "Jesus Christ's called."
4. The Revised Version renderings of kXijtos. — In the instance just
discussed the Revised Version takes kXijtos in its usual verbal sense and
reads "called to be Jesus Christ's," a rendering in which, while the
qualitative intention is not wholly obscured, the emphasis is transferred
to the title 'Ii;o-ov Xpio-Tov, which is made predicative and tehc instead of
possessive. 'AirdoroXos
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — Out of a total of
34 occurrences in the Pauline Epistles 12 are instances of the restrictive
usage, one (II Cor. 12: 12) of the generic, and 21 of the quahtative. In
2 cases (II Cor. 8 : 23 ; Phil. 2:25) dirdoroXos is used in its ordinary, non-
official sense, "messenger."
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — 'AirdoroXos occurs twice after a
preposition, in both cases with the article and in the restrictive sense,
viz., ev Tots diroordXois (Rom. 16:7); irpos tovs diroordXovs (Gal. 1:17).
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — In 9 of the
13 epistles the address contains a reference to Paul as dirdon>Xos. In
II Cor., Gal., Eph., Col., I Tim. and II Tim., and Titus the abrupt
and strikingly quahtative TJavXos diroaroXos is used. In Rom. 1 : 1 and
I Cor. 1:1 the distinctively Pauhne phrase kXijtos dirdoroXos is used.
Upon the hypothesis that is put forward under the discussion of kXittos
the conjunction of the two words may designate Paul as first a member
of the Christian cult and secondly as occupying the position therein
which the appellative dirdoroXos was understood to denote.1
There remain 12 other instances of dirdoroXos used quahtatively,
the more outstanding of which may be discussed:
Rom. 11:13: dpi iym iOvmv diroaroXos. "I am an apostle of
Gentiles." In this passage both nouns are quahtative, the emphasis
lying upon iOvmv. Paul affirms that to him belongs apostleship, and
that of a specific character. An Enghsh rendering which exactly
equates the Greek is "I am apostle of Gentiles." While the term
dirdoroXos is obviously restrictive, designating him as member of a class,
the force of the term here is primarily quahtative, emphasizing the
apostohc character of his relationship to the Gentiles.
1 For a discussion of this term see Professor Ernest D. Burton, "The Office of
Apostle in the Early Church," American Journal of Theology, October, 1912, pp. 561-88.
58

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 59
I Cor. 9:1: ovk eipl dirdoroXos; "Am I not an apostle?" Here
again Paul lays emphasis upon the character of his office as consonant
with freedom in personal action and relationships, while at the same time
indicating the class to which he belongs.
I Cor. 9:2: et dXXois ovk eipt dirdoroXos, dXXd ye vpiv etpt. "If to
others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you." From the context
the purport of this statement appears to be that while others may repudi
ate his claim to apostleship he may expect the Corinthians to recognize
its validity. The qualitative force may be brought out in English by
printing the word with quotation marks : " If to others I am not ' apostle '
I am at least to you."
I Cor. 15:9: Eyio ydp etpt 6 eXdxioros rmv diroordXiov, os ovk eipt ixavos
KaXe!o-0ai dirdo-ToXos. "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not
meet to be called an apostle." Here again the term is quahtative, Paul
expressing his feeling that his previous persecution of the Christians
made him unfit to receive from them subsequently the honorable title
"apostle." 4. The Revised Version renderings of diroaroXos. — The Revised Version
habitually translates d7rdoroXos with the indefinite article, a practice
which, though weakening the qualitative effect, is in keeping with Eng
hsh idiom. Rom. 11:13 is a typical example. The qualitative force
of iOvmv remains unimpaired in the translation, but dirdoroXos is stripped
of its qualitative character, the modifying phrase "of Gentiles" con
tributing to this effect. In English it is common to prefix the indefinite
article to a noun used qualitatively when the noun stands alone (see
p. 8). When, however, a modifying phrase is added as here, and in
translation the passage is made to read "an apostle of Gentiles," the
quahtative character of the appellative disappears and it becomes merely
a class designation. Apart from reference to the underlying Greek the
reader of the English text is not made aware of the qualitative character
of dirdoroXos as he is of eOvmv. In all the epistolary addresses where
anarthrous dirdo-ToXos occurs the bold quahtative is similarly reduced by
the prefixing of the indefinite article. In 4 passages (I Cor. 12:28, 29;
II Cor. 11:13; I Thess. 2:6) dirdoroXos is rendered by its anarthrous
English equivalent and the qualitative force is thereby adequately
expressed. 'Eirt'o-KOiros
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage.— -The infrequency
of this term in the New Testament, even in its later portions, is in strik
ing contrast to its prominence in subsequent church history. It occurs
59

60 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
5 times in the whole New Testament, 3 times in the Pauhne Epistles.
In Phil. 1 : 1 it is the object of a preposition. In both the other instances
(I Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7) the article precedes and the noun is generic.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — Two instances of imo-Konros in
prepositional phrases occur in the New Testament, viz., with the article,
eirt tov . . . . eirt'o-Koirov (I Pet. 2:25); without the article, avv emaKoirois
(Phil. 1:1). In Phil. 1:1 the apostle addresses the saints at Philippi
o-vv imaKoirois koX SiaKovots. Both nouns are used qualitatively and
may be represented in English by the rendering "bishops and deacons
included." 3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — No instance
of such usage occurs.
4. The Revised Version renderings of imo-Ko-rros. — In the Phihppians
passage the Revised Version inserts the article, perhaps assuming that
the definitive force of the article in tois dyt'ois and tois ovo-iv carries
over to the prepositional phrase or else feehng that smoothness of trans
lation requires its presence. Thereby also the ambiguity to which a
hteral translation would be subject (as if the apostle were limiting his
address to those Phihppian Christians who possessed these officers) is
avoided. Nevertheless the careful New Testament student is in duty
bound to observe the absence of the article at this point and to consider
whether its presence in the English translation is justified.
~%mryp
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — As a common term
in the cult of the emperor1 this word acquires a significance and interest
out of proportion to the frequency of its occurrence in the New Testa
ment. It occurs not infrequently in the LXX and is applied both to
God and men, designating in the latter case those judges who rescued
Israel from oppression (Judg. 3:9, 13; Neh. 12:3). In the New Testa
ment it is apphed only to God and Jesus Christ. Its precise significance
in the New Testament is a topic for an investigation of a different
nature from the one in hand and has been treated at length by several
authorities.2 %mryp occurs in the whole New Testament 24 times. In 8
of these it is coupled with Oeos as a title for God. In all other instances
1 See Case, Evolution of Early Christianity, chapter vii, "The Religious Signifi
cance of Emperor Worship'' and literature there cited, especially Heinen, Zur Be-
grttndung des romischen Kaiserkultus: chronologische Ubersicht von 43 v. bis 14. n. Chr.;
also H. F. Burton, "The Worship of the Roman Emperors," Biblical World, August,
1912, pp. 80-91.
3 E.g., Paul Wendland, ZNTW, V (1904), 335 ff.
60

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 61
it is applied to Jesus, usually with concomitant terms (i.e., Kvpios
[II Pet. 3:18]; vJds [I John 4:14]; 'Vovs Xpio-To's [II Tim. 1:10]) and
commonly with the article. It occurs with comparative infrequency in
the Pauline literature, being found only twice (Eph. 5 : 23 ; Phil. 3 : 20)
outside the Pastoral Epistles. In these it occurs 10 times, in 6 being
applied to God and in 4 to Jesus. Its importance as bearing upon the
authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is obvious.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — The usage in the whole New
Testament is as follows:
With the article:
dirb .... tov o-mrrjpos (TitUS 1:4).
Sid .... tov crmrypos (Titus 3:6).
ivutmov tov o-mrypos (I Tim. 2:3).
eiri rm crwrypi (Luke 1:47).
No instance of anarthrous o-mryp in a prepositional phrase occurs.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — There are 3
instances of qualitative o-mryp in the Pauline Epistles, the Pastorals being
included, as follows:
Eph. 5 : 23 : Kat 6 xp'0"ros KecpaXy rys iKKXycrias, avTos o-mryp tov amparos.
"As Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of
the body."1
I Tim. 1:1: LTavXos dirdoroXos Xpicrrov 'lyarov Kar' eirtTayiyv Oeov o-mry-
pos ypmv. "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the command
ment of God our Saviour."2
I Tim. 4:10: os icrnv o-mryp iravrmv avOpmirmv, pdXicrra irtorfiv.
"Who is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe."
In each of the foregoing instances of anarthrous o-mryp its reference
is definite, but it is used qualitatively to ascribe the intrinsic characteristic
of saviourhood to God or to Christ, rather than to designate either
restrictively as "the Saviour."
4. The Revised Version renderings of o-omjp. — In Eph. 5:23 the
Revised Version wrongly translates 0eds with the definite article, thus
affording one of those instances, comparatively rare, where an anar
throus Greek noun is rendered in English by a noun preceded by the
definite article. In the rendering of I Tim. 4 : 10 occurs another instance
of the insertion of the definite article in translation before a noun anar
throus in the Greek. This sharpening of the qualitative into the
1 Note the mistranslation of the qualitative ratfxiXi), properly rendered in Eph. 1:22.
"Note also the mistranslation of icar' iviray-tiv. Cf. also Rom. 16: 26; Titus 1:3.
It is correctly rendered in I Cor. 7:6; II Cor. 8:8.
61

62 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
restrictive usage is without justification. In Phil. 3 : 20, where owjjp is
probably indefinite, the Revised Version appropriately translates "a
Saviour." Kvpios
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — Next to 0eds
this appellative is probably the most frequent in the New Testament,
occurring 725 times, 280 of these being in Paul.1 It is used both with and
without the article. The prevailing usage is to employ the article, but
in 108 instances Kvpios is anarthrous. Sixteen of these are in Old Testa
ment quotations, where the reference is to God; 64 are in prepositional
phrases; 28 are in independent constructions other than in passages
quoted from the Old Testament. In nearly all these last Kvpios is used
quahtatively, but see I Cor. 8:5, where it is used indefinitely.
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — Kvptos occurs frequently in prepo
sitional phrases and with striking preference for the anarthrous form.
Of the 64 occurrences in prepositional phrases only 6 are preceded by the
article. More than hah, then, of the instances of anarthrous Kvpios are
in prepositional phrases, and in prepositional phrases Kvpios is in 90
per cent of the instances anarthrous. A full exhibition of the Pauhne
prepositional usage of Kvpios is as follows:
With the article:
dir6 tov Kvptov (I Cor. 11:23).
8id tov Kvpiov (Rom. 5:1, 11; 15:30; IThess. 4:2; 5:9).
Without the article:
diroKvpt'ov (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:3; II Cor. 1:2; 3:18; Gal. 1:3;
Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; Col. 3:24; IIThess. 1:1; Philem. 3).
ev Kvpt'01 (Rom. 14:14; 16:2, 8, n, 12 [6*5], 13, 22; I Cor. 1:31;
4:17; 7:22,39; 9:1,2; 11:11; 15:58; 16:19; II Cor. 2:12; 10:17;
Eph. 2:21; 4:1, 17; 5:8; 6:1, 10, 21; Phil. 1:14; 2:19, 24, 29; 3:1;
4:1, 2, 4, 10; Col. 3:18, 20; 4:7, 17; I Thess. 1:1; 3:8; 4:1; 5:12;
IIThess. 3:4, 12; Philem. 16, 20).
evmirtov Kvpiov (II Cor. 8:21).
im Kvpiov (I Tim. 5:5 [margin]).
irapd Kvptov (Eph. 6:8).
irpos Kvpiov (II Cor. 3 : 16).
o-vv Kvpi'io (I Thess. 4:17).
vird Kvptov (I Cor. 7:25; II Thess. 2:13).
1 It is noteworthy that of the 280 instances in Paul only 7 are used in a sense other
than as referring to God or to Christ, viz., Rom. 14:4; ICor.8:s; Gal. 1:4; Eph.6:s,
9; Col. 3:22; 4:1. 62

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 63
Of the 6 instances where Kvptos with the article is the object of a
preposition the latter is never ev and the relation is measurably, at least,
objective, and the person referred to individualized. In actual usage ev
Kvpttu, occurring 46 times, expresses not a spatial idea, though the spatial
conception is doubtless the basis of the phrase, but the sphitual, mystical
relationship of the Christian to the heavenly Christ, which in turn
entails various spiritual benefits and imposes various duties. It is to
be noted that no instance of ev t<3 Kvpim occurs, a fact which argues for
the hypothesis here put forward, namely, that in the prepositional
phrase ev Kvpi'^> the noun is not to be regarded as definite, although the
revisers have invariably so translated it, but as quahtative, being used
as a technical term, expressive of the mystical relationship of the believer
to Christ or a cult designation for the circle of Christian fellowship.
The quahtative character of the phrase is apparently reflected in the
omission of the article before the noun.
The evidence of the prepositional usage examined in this investigation
tends to establish the principle that in Paul, at least, nouns in preposi
tional phrases are anarthrous when the prepositional phrase itself is
quahtative. In such cases the noun itself may not strictly be regarded
as qualitative though the phrase is. The quahtative character of the
phrase is indicated by the omission of the article before the noun, since
there is no article before the phrase whose omission would indicate this
character. The statement sometimes made that nouns in prepositional
phrases tend to be anarthrous is true to this extent, that nouns in prepo
sitional phrases are anarthrous when the phrase itself is quahtative.
In general the omission of the article before nouns in prepositional
phrases is clearly dehberate, with the intention of indicating theh
quahtative force. The noun after a preposition in no wise differs in its
articular usage from a noun not used after a preposition (see, e.g., II Cor.
11 : 23, 26), but is anarthrous when indefinite or qualitative, or when the
phrase itself is quahtative. In the case of ev Kvpity these points are illus
trated. Kvptos is not indefinite and it is not itself qualitative. It is the
whole phrase which is used quahtatively and therefore, though the refer
ence is perfectly definite, the noun in the phrase is made anarthrous as
an indication of the quahtative character of the phrase.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — There are
28 instances of Kvpios used quahtatively in constructions other than
prepositional phrases and in passages other than those quoted from the
Old Testament. As typical instances may be cited Rom. 10:9: edv
bpoXoyyo-ys . . . . 0V1 KYPIOS IH20Y2 .... crmOyo-y; also I Cor . 8 : 6 :
63

64 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
[dXX'j ^ptv .... Kai ets Kvptos 'Itjo-ovs Xpio-ros. In these passages it is
the lordship of Jesus which is demanded and asserted, the term Kvpios
being strongly quahtative. The remaining instances of this character
are Rom. 14:6 (ter); I Cor. 4:4; 7:22,25; 10:21(6*5); 12:3; 14:37;
16:10; II Cor. 4:5; 12:1; Gal. 4:1; Eph. 4:5; 6:4; Phil. 2:11, 30;
3:20; 001.3:17; 4:1; I Thess. 4:6, 15; 5:2; ITim. 6:15; IITim.
2 : 24. In a few passages, of which Phil. 3 : 20 is an illustration, Kvpios
without the article occurs as a part of the title Kvptos 'lyo-ovs Xptords,
in which the 3 terms constitute a single proper name, but the quahtative
character of the appellative is at the same time preserved, as in the
English "Captain John Smith," "President Wilson," etc.
4. The Revised Version renderings of Kvpios. — In its renderings of
anarthrous Kvptos the Revised Version has usually employed the definite
article, iv Kvpim, for example, being usually rendered "in the Lord,"
which, however, was necessary inasmuch as Enghsh idiom does not
permit the phrase "in Lord," though it does allow "in Christ" or "in
God." In those passages in which the acknowledgment that Jesus is
Kvpios is set forth as the essential Christian creed (Rom. 10:9; I Cor.
12:3; Phil. 2:11; cf. II Cor. 4:5) the Revised Version preserves the
qualitative effect by an anarthrous rendering. The expression of the
quahtative character of Kvpios in prepositional phrases may well be
practically impossible in English and the renderings of the Revised
Version, therefore, may be as exact an equivalent as is feasible. In
general, then, the treatment accorded the term in the Revised Version
is insusceptible to dissenting criticism.

©eds
1. Statistical and comparative statement of usage. — As one of the
most frequent appellatives, appearing 1,326 times in the whole New
Testament and 520 times in Paul, this word is worthy of a detailed
attention which its extraordinary frequency renders all the more
difficult. Out of the 520 occurrences in Paul, 158 are clear instances
of Oeos without the article. Four others in the phrase tov o-orrypos
ypmv Oeov (I Tim. 2:3; Titus 1:3; 2 : 10 ; 3 : 4) are questionable. Of the
158, 41 are in prepositional phrases. In nearly all instances where
anarthrous 0eds occurs it is in the obhque cases, occurring chiefly as a
genitive modifier, but a few occurrences of the nominative must be
admitted, viz., Rom. 8:33; 9:5; I Cor. 8:4; Phil. 2:13; I Thess. 2:5;
I Tim. 3 : 16; Titus 1 : 16. 64

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 65
2. Usage in prepositional phrases. — The prepositional usage of Oeos
in the whole New Testament is as follows:
With the article:
dird tov Oeov (Luke 1:26; Acts 2:22; 26:22; Rom. 15:15; Heb.
6:7; Rev. 3:12; 12:6; 20:9; 21:2,10).
eis tov Oeov (John 14:1; Acts 6:11; 24:15).
eK tov Oeov (John 6:33; 7:17; 8:42, 47 [6*5]; Rom. 2:29; I Cor.
2:12; 11:12; HCor.3:5; 5:18; I John 3:9 [6*5], 10; 4:1, 2, 3, 4, 6 [Ms],
7 [6*5]; 5:1, 4, 18 [6*5], 19; HIJohnii; Rev. 11:11).
epirpoo-Oev tov 0eov (Acts 10:4; I Cor. 4:5; I Thess. 3:9, 13).
ev tw Oem (Rom. 5:11; Eph. 3:9; Col. 3:3; I Thess. 2:2; I John
4:15, 16).
evavn tov Oeov (Luke 1:8; Acts 8:21).
evavn'ov tov Oeov (Luke 1:6; 24:19).
evoJiriov tov fleov (Luke 1:19; 12:6; 16:15; Acts 4:19; 7:46; 10:31,
33; Rom. 14:22; ICor. 1:29; II Cor. 4:2; 7:12; Gal. 1:20; ITim.
5:4,21; 6:13; IITim. 2:14; 4:1; Rev. 3:2; 8:2,4; 9:13; 11:16;
12:10; 16:19).
eirl t<3 0e<5 (Luke 1:47; II Cor. 1:9).
eiri tov Oeov (Matt. 27:43; Acts 15:19; 26:18,20; ITim. 5:5).
KaTa tov Oeov (Matt. 26:63; I Cor. 15:15).
irapd tov Oeov (John 5:44; 6:46; 8:40; 16:27).
irapd tiS Oem (Mark 10:27; Luke 1:37; 18:27; Rom. 2:11, 13;
9:14; ICor. 3:19; Gal. 3:11; Jas. 1:27).
irpds tov Oeov (John 1:1, 2; 13:3; 20:17; Acts 12:5; 24:16;
Rom.5:i; 10:1; 15:17,30; IICor.3:4; 13:7; Phil.4:6; IThess. 1:8,
9; Heb. 2:17; 5:1; IJohn3:2i; Rev. 12:5; 13:6).
virb toS Oeov (Matt. 22:31; Acts 10:41; 26:6; I Cor. 2:12; H Cor.
1:4; Gal. 3:17; IThess. 1:4; 2:4; Heb. 5:4, 10).
Without the article:
dird 0eov (John 3:2; 13:3; 16:30; Rom. 1:7; ICor. 1:3,30; 6:19;
II Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2, 28; Col. 1:2;
H Thess. 1:2; ITim. 1:2; H Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3; Heb.
3:12; Jas. 1:13; II Pet. 1:21).
Sid Oeov (Gal. 1:1; 4:7).
eisfledv (Luke 12:21; Rom. 8:7; I Pet. 1:21; 3:5,21).
iK Oeov (John 1:13; Acts 5:39; I Cor. 7:7; II Cor. 2:17; 5:1;
Phil. 3:9).
iv 0e<S(Rom. 2:17; IThess. 1:1; IIThess. 1:1; Jude 1).
iirl Oem (I Tim. 4: 10; 6 : 17). 65

66 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
eiri Oeov (Acts 14: 15; Heb. 6: 1).
Kara Oeov (Rom. 8:27; II Cor. 7 : 9, 10, 11; Eph. 4: 24; I Pet. 4:6; 5:2).
KOTevavTi 0eov (Rom. 4:17; II Cor. 12:19).
irapd Oeov (John 1:6; 9:33; II Pet. 1:17; II John 3).
irapd Oem (Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 2:52; I Cor. 7:24;
II Thess. 1:6; I Pet. 2:4, 20).
irpds OeSov (Rom. 4:2).
Wo Oeov (Rom. 13:1 [6*5]; Gal. 4:9).
The foregoing exhibit discloses the following facts: Oeos with and
without the article is used in prepositional phrases in the whole New
Testament 199 times; in 67 instances it is anarthrous, in 132 articular.
In Paul 0eds occurs in prepositional phrases 86 times, 41 of which are
anarthrous; in the Lucan writings 32 times, 4 of which are anarthrous;
in the Johannine writings 55 times, 7 of which are anarthrous; in the
Epistle to the Hebrews 7 times, 2 of which are anarthrous; in James
twice, 1 of which is anarthrous; in I and II Peter 9 times, all of which
are anarthrous. These data suggest that the New Testament usage
of Oeos in prepositional phrases is precisely that of nouns in other con
structions, viz., the article is dropped or retained according to the idea
the writer desires to convey. If in his thought the term is restrictive
or generic he employs the article; if in his thought the term is indefinite
or quahtative he omits the article as a sign of that fact. If he employs
the prepositional phrase as a whole qualitatively he omits the article
before the noun in the phrase to show that the phrase is so intended,
though the noun itself may not be strictly quahtative and though its
reference may be perfectly definite. In no single instance of the 67
cases of anarthrous Oeos which the New Testament presents is the
reference to any other than the Jewish and Christian deity, and in every
case the absence of the article indicates either that the word Oeos is used
quahtatively or that the prepositional phrase as a whole is so used.
3. Qualitative usage other than in prepositional phrases. — In general
0eds without the article is qualitative (adjectival), approximating the
adjective 0eTos or the abstract noun o'etdT^s (I Tim. 3:16). A few
instances of Oeos used qualitatively may be discussed, e.g. :
Rom. 1:17: SiKatoo-vvjj yap Oedu iv avrm djroKaXvjrreTai. "For therein
[in the gospel] is revealed a righteousness of God."
Rom. 1:18: d7roKaXvjrTCTai ydp opyy Oeov. "For the [margin "a"]
wrath of God is revealed."
The "righteousness" and "wrath" are conceived of here as dis
tinguished by the characteristics which God possesses. That which is
66

QUALITATIVE NOUNS IN THE PAULINE EPISTLES 67
revealed is "divine righteousness," "divine wrath." While the anar
throus noun refers as definitely to God as if the article were present, the
omission of the article indicates that it is not God as the possessor or
imposer of righteousness or wrath which is foremost in the apostle's
thought, but the peculiar character which belongs to righteousness
. and wrath by virtue of the fact that they proceed from God.
Rom. 8:9: eiirep irvevpa Oeov otKei ev vpiv. "If SO be that the spirit
of God dwelleth in you."
Rom. 8:14: 00-01 ydp irvevpaTi Oeov dyovTai, ovtoi vtoi Oeov eicriv. "But
as many as are led by the spirit of God, these are sons of God."
In these instances irvevpa 0eov is to be distinguished from to irvevpa
tov Oeov, not in respect to the definiteness of its reference but in respect
to the emphasis laid upon the quality both of irvevpa and Oeov. In
neither of the cases cited above is it "the spirit of God," thought of
restrictively, but "divine spirit," thought of quahtatively; that is to
say, one may conceive of a spiritual influence emanating from deity and
denominate it "the spirit of God," that is, the certain spirit which God
possesses or of which he is the source. Thinking of this same spirit
quahtatively we may call it " divine spirit," that is to say, spirit whose
characteristics are akin to or identical with those of deity itself. As a
matter of fact the definitive content of the two expressions may be
precisely identical; in the one case, however, the writer uses the expres
sion restrictively, in the other qualitatively.
I Cor. 1:1: LTavXos kXijtos dirdoroXos ^lyaov Xpiorov] Std OeXyparos Oeov.
"Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God."
I Cor. 1:18: 'O Xdyos ydp 6 tov oravpov .... Bvvapis Oeov ia-riv.
"For the word of the cross .... is the power of God."
Rom. 1:16: ov ydp iiraicrxvvopai to evayyeXiov, Svvapis ydp Oeov iarlv.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God."
In all the above 0eds is used qualitatively. In I Cor. 1:1 Paul's
apostleship is grounded upon divine intention. In this, as in all other
occurrences of the Pauline phrase, Sid OeXyparos Oeov, the phrase is to be
understood as equal to "by divine decree." In I Cor. i : 18 and Rom.
1:16 the gospel message is called "divine power." In Rom. 1:16 the
gospel is not thought of (as the Enghsh translation would indicate) as
tha£ particular "power" belonging to God through which salvation is
achieved, but simply as divine power working toward a definite end which
is itself thought of quahtatively (o-mryplav not ryv o-mryplav). It is,
rendering the thought accurately, "divine power directed to the pro
duction of human salvation." 67

68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
I Cor. 8:4; oiSapev .... OTt ovSets 0eds el py ets. "We know ....
that there is no God but one."
I Cor. 8:5: Kai ydp etirep etcriv Xeydpevoi 0eot eire ev ovpavm eire iirl
y^s, mcrirep eloiv Oeol iroXXot Kai Kvpioi iroXXoi, [dXX'] ^piv els Oeos 6 iraryp.
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on
earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one
God, the Father."
Gal. 4:8: eSovXevouTe tois <pvo-et py ovcri Oeots. "Ye were in bondage
to them that by nature are no gods."
II Thess. 2:4: 6 . . . . virepatpdpevos eirt irdvTa Xeydpevov Oeov. " He
that exalteth himself against all that is called God."
In I Cor. 8:4, 6, where are found what are perhaps the clearest
instances of the qualitative usage of 0eds which the New Testament
affords, the 0eds 6 iraryp, who to Paul is the only being actually 0eds,
is contrasted with those whom he dismisses as merely Oeol so called.
In Gal. 4:8 the apostle denies the right of the gods previously
worshiped by the Galatians to the title 0eds. The term is obviously
strongly qualitative, the apostle's thought being that these previously
worshiped gods were lacking in the characteristics which are proper to
deity. In II Thess. 2:4 also 0eds is clearly qualitative, the quality fore
most in the writer's thought being the right of a 0eds to reverential
treatment. 4. The Revised Version renderings of Oeos. — The revisers' fixed rule
has been to translate 0eds literally. Inasmuch as in English idiom the
name of deity is regularly anarthrous this leaves the qualitative effect
to be recognized only by reference to the Greek and to be expressed in
English either by circumlocution or by mental or vocal emphasis.
Though to give accurate renderings of Oeos used qualitatively would
have increased the difficulty of the translators' work and have involved
a greater degree of departure from the Authorized Version than the
rules of the company contemplated, the Enghsh reader had the right
to expect that such accurate renderings would be furnished. A trans
lator is under obligation to give his reader a version that shall be true
both to the letter and the spirit of the original. The mere substitution
of the Enghsh term "God" for the Greek 0eds fails to acquaint the
reader with the qualitative intention of the author's usage. If to dis
cover this the reader must have recourse to the Greek the translation
has obviously in so far failed to achieve the very purpose for which it
was made. 68

IV. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY
In the Greek text of the Pauline Epistles there occur 8,841 nouns
and noun equivalents. Of these some 2,857 are use<i qualitatively.
Of these 2,445 are s0 translated as to express in Enghsh the qualitative
force of the original, while in 412 instances this has been obscured either
by a failure to recognize the qualitative character of the noun in ques
tion or by a failure adequately to express that character in Enghsh. In
some of these cases doubtless an ambiguous rendering of the quahtative
force of the Greek is impossible. In others, a reader, famihar with the
Greek, and observing the quahtative character of the noun, may in read
ing give the proper emphasis either mentally or vocally, but he cannot
discover it from the English. The difference between English and Greek
idiom doubtless renders a translation that is at the same time accurate
and idiomatic, difficult and sometimes impossible. At the same time
the Enghsh reader has a right to expect from a translator that he will
give him whenever possible such a rendering of qualitative nouns as
shall enable him to recognize their quahtative character without the
necessity of reference to the original, and this the revisers have in the
majority of cases, but by no means uniformly, done.
The ascertainment of the relative correctness of the Revised Version
in its renderings of qualitative nouns fulfils the secondary purpose of
the investigation. The primary purpose was the discovery and listing
of the nouns used quahtatively, together with such discussion as the
limits of the dissertation allow, in the conviction that due attention to
this element of New Testament lexicography will contribute to a more
accurate interpretation of the New Testament.
Incidentally the investigation has shown that nouns after prepositions
have no pecuhar usage respecting the use of the article by virtue of that
'fact. Anarthrous nouns in prepositional phrases, like such nouns in
other constructions, are in general either indefinite or qualitative. The
general proposition that nouns in prepositional phrases are either indefi
nite or qualitative requires modification only to the extent that nouns
in prepositional phrases themselves qualitative or formulary tend to
omit the article even if the noun is not itself, strictly speaking, qual
itative. The evidence indicates that Pauhne usage is not lax but
69] 69

70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
accurate, i.e., strictly in accordance with fixed principles. When the
prepositional phrase is itseh quahtative that quahtative character is
shown by the omission of the article though the noun is not itseh
strictly quahtative. The failure to recognize this fact has led New
Testament grammarians (e.g., Winer, Buttmann) into intricate and
often erroneous observations.

70